Reference standard analysis of multiple new and old plasma clearance models and renal clearance with special attention to measurement of reduced glomerular filtration rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine models were evaluated as candidate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) reference standards in three datasets using [$^{51}$Cr(EDTA)]$^-$ or [$^{169}$Yb(DTPA)]$^{2-}$ anions in 98 studies. Noncompartmental methods formed an upper limit for estimating mass excreted and voluntary urine collection formed a lower limit. For current models and methods, reduced GFR in adults resulted in inflated clearance estimates. Two different logarithmic models with exponential tails were created and may have underestimated reduced clearance. The logarithmic formulae can be used with only two plasma samples, and fit 13 studies totalling 162 plasma samples drawn from 5 min to 24 h with an 8% standard deviation of residuals compared to 20% error for monoexponentials. For shorter times (4 or 5 h) the fit errors decreased but the ratio of errors remained at circa 2.5 times lesser for the logarithmic versus monoexponential models. Adaptively regularised gamma variate, Tk-GV, models that are well documented, but not in common use, were largely contained within the reference extreme values, were unbiased for different levels of clearance and were the only models to be uncorrelated to volume of distribution from mean residence time divided by weight. Using Tk-GV as a candidate reference standard, potentially better methods for routine clinical usage were discussed. Prospective clinical testing, and metabolic scaling of decreased renal function is advised for potential changes to patient triage.
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 | 0.053 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".