MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of Total Water Intake Guidelines in Maintaining Lowered Urine Osmolality

2018· article· en· W3177446801 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Seal, Evan C. Johnson, François Pérronet, Lisa T. Jansen, LynnDee G. Summers, J.D. Adams, Erica T. Perrier, Isabelle Guelinckx, Stavros A. Kavouras

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrineUrine osmolalityReceiver operating characteristicArea under the curvePlasma osmolalityUrine specific gravityMedicineBody waterAnimal scienceWater intakeUrologyChemistryEndocrinologyInternal medicineBody weightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reference values for daily total water intake from fluids and foods (TWI) from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) are 2.7 and 3.7 liters for females and males, respectively. Recent studies suggest that for optimal water intake 24h urine osmolality should be maintained below 500 mmol·kg −1 . Purpose To determine the total water intake requirement for healthy adults to maintain 24h urine osmolality below 500 mmol·kg −1 . Methods Urinary concentration was assessed in 48 men and 50 women (age: 41±14 y, body mass index: 26.2±5.1 kg·m −2 ) via urine osmolality from 24h samples (UOsm). TWI was assessed via water turnover using the deuterium dilution (D 2 O) method throughout a 7‐day time period, corrected for metabolic water production. The diagnostic accuracy of TWI to identify UOsm ≤ 500 mmol·kg −1 was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in men and women separately. Results UOsm was 511±232 and 402±203 mmol·kg −1 and TWI was 3.54±1.08 L·d −1 and 3.20±1.27 L·d −1 in men and women, respectively. 32% of men and 55% of women met IOM guidelines for TWI. ROC analysis for TWI detecting UOsm ≤ 500 mmol·kg −1 in men yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 77.4% with sensitivity, specificity, and threshold values of 83.3%, 64.5%, and 3.39 L·d −1 , respectively. In women, the AUC was 82.4% with sensitivity, specificity, and threshold values of 85.7%, 72.1%, and 2.61 L·d −1 , respectively. Conclusion Considering threshold values in men and women of 3.39 L·d −1 and 2.61 L·d −1 , respectively, maintaining TWI in line with IOM guidelines of 3.7 L·d −1 in men and 2.7 L·d −1 in women should be sufficient for most individuals to maintain 24h urine osmolality less than 500 mmol·kg −1 . Support or Funding Information This research was supported by Danone Research. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207