Urinary extracellular vesicles: A position paper by the Urine Task Force of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urine is commonly used for clinical diagnosis and biomedical research. The discovery of extracellular vesicles (EV) in urine opened a new fast-growing scientific field. In the last decade urinary extracellular vesicles (uEVs) were shown to mirror molecular processes as well as physiological and pathological conditions in kidney, urothelial and prostate tissue. Therefore, several methods to isolate and characterize uEVs have been developed. However, methodological aspects of EV separation and analysis, including normalization of results, need further optimization and standardization to foster scientific advances in uEV research and a subsequent successful translation into clinical practice. This position paper is written by the Urine Task Force of the Rigor and Standardization Subcommittee of ISEV consisting of nephrologists, urologists, cardiologists and biologists with active experience in uEV research. Our aim is to present the state of the art and identify challenges and gaps in current uEV-based analyses for clinical applications. Finally, recommendations for improved rigor, reproducibility and interoperability in uEV research are provided in order to facilitate advances in the field.
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 | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".