Baseline urine pH is related to effective urine alkalization by short-term alkaline water supplementation: data from a self-controlled study in healthy Chinese volunteers following a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The outcomes of urine alkalization with alkaline water supplementation vary greatly across studies and therefore remain inconclusive, probably arising from differences in study design, ethnic group, and source of alkaline water, which needs further clarification. With a systematic review of literature, followed by an empirical observation among healthy Chinese volunteers, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of urine alkalization with alkaline water vs. daily drinking water, and whether these outcomes are intersected by certain factors such as gender and body mass index (BMI). Methods: -statistic test were used to examine the data heterogeneity. The studies were evaluated for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The meta-analysis was followed by a study in healthy volunteers. As per protocol, all subjects remained on regular drinking water for one week and were switched to alkaline water for the next week. Urine pH was measured thrice daily and averaged. The mean urine pH values in the first and second weeks were compared for all subjects. Alkalization gains in urine pH (AGU-pH) was computed to determine the outcome of alkaline water supplementation in relation to baseline urine pH. Results: . 6.22±0.22, P=0.0016). The negative correlation between AGU-pH and baseline urine pH (r=-0.236, P=0.044) and receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis suggested that subjects with more "acidic" urine, particularly those with a baseline urine pH ≤6.0 (maximum Youden index =1.548, cut-off =5.977), could show more pronounced outcome of urine alkalization from oral alkaline water. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis and human subjects study revealed that alkaline water supplementation may be useful for urine alkalization, particularly in individuals with a lower urine pH. The outcomes seem not significantly pronounced in females, although more efforts warranted for validation. Short-term use of alkaline water is well-tolerated and not associated with over-alkalization of the urine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".