A Time for Rediscovery: Chronic Hemofiltration for End‐Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provision of maintenance renal replacement therapy (MRRT) is becoming increasingly challenging. The number of patients requiring MRRT is growing rapidly, while the number of nephrologists, nurses, and other staff available to provide therapy is not increasing at a similar rate. Patients are now older and have more comorbid conditions, which magnifies the complexity of their RRT and makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the quality of care within the limitations of constrained economic resources. The two most commonly used MRRTs are hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). A third modality of MRRT, hemofiltration, is not currently in widespread use in North America. In hemofiltration, plasma is filtered through a highly permeable, biocompatible synthetic membrane and waste products are removed by convection and solvent drag as the filtrate moves across the membrane. Hemofiltration equipment constantly monitors the rate of plasma removal and administers a sterile, nonpyrogenic replacement solution at an appropriate rate to replace the waste-laden ultrafiltrate and avoid vdume depletion in the patient. Hemofiltration may offer some potential clinical advantages to the MRRT patient, including better hemodynamic and cardiovascular stability, enhanced removal of middle molecular weight toxins, increased comfort, and therapy preference. Some reports indicate possible reduced morbidity and mortality and reduced risk of bacterial contamination and inflammation as a result of the use of sterile, ultrapure replacement fluids. Chronic hemofiltration is a relatively simple MRRT option that may offer significant benefits for many patients who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and deserves closer consideration for these patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".