Intensive Hemodialysis: Normalizing the “Unphysiology” of Conventional Hemodialysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in intensified hemodialysis (HD) regimens is increasing internationally, as there is growing evidence that they are associated with improved outcomes. Appreciation that conventional hemodialysis (CHD), delivered as 4-hour sessions three times a week, is not providing optimal physiological replacement of renal function has led to the development of intensified dialysis therapies. These include long intermittent hemodialysis typically lasting 6-8 hours and delivered three times a week, short daily hemodialysis, providing more frequent sessions 4-7 days a week lasting 2-3.5 hours, and nocturnal hemodialysis, performed 5-7 days a week for 6-8 hours. Studies evaluating outcomes from these programs have indicated superior results to those achieved with CHD, including favorable modifications of cardiovascular risk factors and improvements in a variety of clinical measures. The objective of this review is to present available evidence supporting the hypothesis that in an attempt to provide a "more normal physiology," intensified HD regimens achieve outcomes superior to those historically achieved with CHD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".