Kidney volume normative values in Central European children aged 0-19 years – a multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objecitves: The currently available kidney volume normative values in children are restricted to small populations from single-centre studies not assessing kidney function and including none or only a small number of adolescents. This study aimed to obtain ultrasound-based kidney volume normative values derived from a large European Caucasian paediatric population with normal kidney function. Methods: After recruitment of 1427 children aged 0–19 years, 1396 individuals with no history of kidney disease and normal estimated glomerular filtration rate were selected for the sonographic evaluation of kidney volume. Kidney volume was correlated with age, height, weight, body surface area and body mass index. Kidney volume curves and tables related to anthropometric parameters were generated using the LMS method. Kidney volume predictors were evaluated using multivariate regression analysis with collinearity checks. Results: No clinically significant differences in kidney volume in relation to height were found between males and females, between supine and prone position and between left and right kidneys. Males had, however, larger age-related kidney volumes than females in most age categories. For the prediction of kidney volume, the highest coefficient correlation was observed for body surface area (r = 0.94), followed by weight (r = 0.92), height (r = 0.91), age (r = 0.91), and body mass index (r = 0.67; p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: This study presents LMS-percentile curves and tables for kidney volume which can be used as reference values for children aged 0–19 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".