Table 1.
Main demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population (n = 95).
Table 2.
Concentrations of uremic solutes ± standard deviation according to CKD-stage (CKD-EPI-Crea-CystC).
Figure 1.
Regression coefficients between LN of studies LMWP’s and eGFR.
The coefficients of the linear regression analysis between the natural logarithm of the studied low molecular weight protein concentrations and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, according to CKD-EPI-Crea-CystC, can be divided into 3 groups: strong (R2 >0.7), moderate (R2 0.2–0.7) and weak (R2 <0.2). The dashed lines indicate R2 = 0.2 and 0.7. All correlations were significant except for Ig-κ and Ig-λ. LN: natural logarithm, LMWP: low molecular weight protein, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, R2: regression coefficient, Cyst C: Cystatin C, β2M: beta-2-microglobulin, RbP: retinol binding protein, PTH: parathyroid hormone, IL-6: interleukin-6, FGF-23: fibroblast growth factor-23, TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor-alpha, Ig-κ: immunoglobulin light chain kappa, Ig-λ: immunoglobulin light chain lambda.
Table 3.
Regression coefficients of LMWP’s and different eGFR formulae.
Figure 2.
Dot plots with best fit linear regression lines for LN of LMWP’s in function of eGFR.
Dot plots with best fit linear regression lines for natural logarithms of β2M, myoglobin, IL-6 and Ig-λ, as examples of strongly, moderately and weakly correlating low molecular weight proteins, in function of estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, calculated by CKD-EPI-Crea-CystC. The dots represent the individual concentrations and the lines the best fit linear regression line with the 95% confidence interval. LN: natural logarithm, LMWP: low molecular weight protein, β2M : beta-2- microglobulin, IL-6: Interleukin-6, Ig-λ: immunoglobulin light chain lambda, EPI-Crea-CystC: CKD-EPI formula based on serum creatinine and Cystatin C, R2: regression coefficient, LN: natural logarithm.
Table 4.
Regression coefficients (R2) of the concentration of LMWP’s and eGFR (CKD-EPI-Crea-CystC) comparing CKD stage 2–3 versus CKD stage 4–5.
Table 5.
Main factors influencing the concentrations of the studied LMWP’s, other than GFR.