Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,720

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review on uremic toxins: Classification, concentration, and interindividual variability

Open access
Vanholder, Raymond, For the European Uremic Toxin Work Group (EUTox), De Smet, Rita, Glorieux, Griet, Argilés, Angel, Baurmeister, Ulrich, Brunet, Philippe, Clark, William, Cohen, Gerald, De Deyn, Peter Paul, Deppisch, Reinhold, Descamps-Latscha, Beatrice, Henle, Thomas, Jörres, Achim, Lemke, Horst Dieter, Massy, Ziad A., Passlick-Deetjen, Jutta, Rodriguez, Mariano, Stegmayr, Bernd, Stenvinkel, Peter, Tetta, Ciro, Wanner, Christoph, Zidek, Walter·2003·Kidney International

Abstract

BACKGROUND The choice of the correct concentration of potential uremic toxins for in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo experiments remains a major area of concern; errors at this level might result in incorrect decisions regarding therpeutic correction of uremia and related clinical complications. METHODS An encyclopedic list of uremic retention solutes was composed, containing their mean normal concentration (CN), their highest mean/median uremic concentration (CU), their highest concentration ever reported in uremia (CMAX), and their molecular weight. A literature search of 857 publications on uremic toxicity resulted in the selection of data reported in 55 publications on 90 compounds, published between 1968 and 2002. RESULTS For all compounds, CU and/or CMAX exceeded CN. Molecular weight was lower than 500 D for 68 compounds; of the remaining 22 middle molecules, 12 exceeded 12,000 D. CU ranged from 32.0 ng/L (methionine-enkephalin) up to 2.3 g/L (urea). CU in the ng/L range was found especially for the middle molecules (10/22; 45.5%), compared with 2/68 (2.9%) for a molecular weight <500 D (P < 0.002). Twenty-five solutes (27.8%) were protein bound. Most of them had a molecular weight <500 D except for leptin and retinol-binding protein. The ratio CU/CN, an index of the concentration range over which toxicity is exerted, exceeded 15 in the case of 20 compounds. The highest values were registered for several guanidines, protein-bound compounds, and middle molecules, to a large extent compounds with known toxicity. A ratio of CMAX/CU <4, pointing to a Gaussian distribution, was found for the majority of the compounds (74/90; 82%). For some compounds, however, this ratio largely exceeded 4 [e.g., for leptin (6.81) or indole-3-acetic acid (10.37)], pointing to other influencing factors than renal function, such as gender, genetic predisposition, proteolytic breakdown, posttranslation modification, general condition, or nutritional status. CONCLUSION Concentrations of retention solutes in uremia vary over a broad range, from nanograms per liter to grams per liter. Low concentrations are found especially for the middle molecules. A substantial number of molecules are protein bound and/or middle molecules, and many of these exert toxicity and are characterized by a high range of toxic over normal concentration (CU/CN ratio). Hence, uremic retention is a complex problem that concerns many more solutes than the current markers of urea and creatinine alone. This list provides a basis for systematic analytic approaches to map the relative importance of the enlisted families of toxins.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00924.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,720

Metadata

Authors
Vanholder, R., For the European Uremic Toxin Work Group (EUTox), De Smet, R., Glorieux, G., Argilés, A., Baurmeister, U., Brunet, P., Clark, W., Cohen, G., De Deyn, P. P., Deppisch, R., Descamps-Latscha, B., Henle, T., Jörres, A., Lemke, H. D., Massy, Z. A., Passlick-Deetjen, J., Rodriguez, M., Stegmayr, B., Stenvinkel, P., Tetta, C., Wanner, C., & Zidek, W.
Venue
Kidney International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-05
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
1934-1943
ISSN
0085-2538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122231873
Cited by
1,720
References
1
FWCI
23.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review on uremic toxins: Classification, concentration, and interindividual variability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00924.x
The paper
Vanholder, R., For the European Uremic Toxin Work Group (EUTox), De Smet, R., Glorieux, G., Argilés, A., Baurmeister, U., Brunet, P., Clark, W., Cohen, G., De Deyn, P. P., Deppisch, R., Descamps-Latscha, B., Henle, T., Jörres, A., Lemke, H. D., Massy, Z. A., Passlick-Deetjen, J., Rodriguez, M., Stegmayr, B., . . . Zidek, W. (2003). Review on uremic toxins: Classification, concentration, and interindividual variability. Kidney International. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00924.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.