4.6 Article

Uranium associations with kidney outcomes vary by urine concentration adjustment method

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jes.2013.18

关键词

creatinine; kidney function; metals; uranium

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [2 ES007198]
  2. Korea Research Foundation from the Korea Research Foundation [2000-00545]
  3. Education and Research Center for Occupational Safety and Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) [T42 OH0008428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uranium is a ubiquitous metal that is nephrotoxic at high doses. Few epidemiologic studies have examined the kidney filtration impact of chronic environmental exposure. In 684 lead workers environmentally exposed to uranium, multiple linear regression was used to examine associations of uranium measured in a 4-h urine collection with measured creatinine clearance, serum creatinine- and cystatin-C-based estimated glomerular filtration rates, and N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG). Three methods were utilized, in separate models, to adjust uranium levels for urine concentration-mu g uranium/g creatinine; mu g uranium/l and urine creatinine as separate covariates; and mu g uranium/4 h. Median urine uranium levels were 0.07 mu g/g creatinine and 0.02 mu g/4 h and were highly correlated (r(s) = 0.95). After adjustment, higher In-urine uranium was associated with lower measured creatinine clearance and higher NAG in models that used urine creatinine to adjust for urine concentration but not in models that used total uranium excreted (mu g/4 h). These results suggest that, in some instances, associations between urine toxicants and kidney outcomes may be statistical, due to the use of urine creatinine in both exposure and outcome metrics, rather than nephrotoxic. These findings support consideration of non-creatinine-based methods of adjustment for urine concentration in nephrotoxicant research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据