Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis: Patient's Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Several studies have showed that nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD, 6 times weekly 6–8 h) results in a better outcome. How do patients and their partners experience this very intensive treatment that has a great impact on daily life? Methods: We followed a cohort of 12 patients (11 male, 1 female, mean age 46.8 ± 9.4 years, time for renal replacement 11.3 ± 9.4 years) and their partners during a year after starting NHD, using questionnaires and interviews and the SF‐36. Results: Both the physical and the mental components of the SF‐36 showed an improvement in all aspects (p < 0.05), even in this small group. All couples considered NHD a tremendous improvement over routine thrice weekly dialysis. The drawbacks (such as daily routine and the intrusion of the treatment in bed) are outweighed by the advantages (such as better clinical condition, less fatigue, less uremic symptoms, better quality of life, more time, and free diet). Following are a few comments on NHD: “NHD is a difference of day and night,”“NHD gave me independence,”“Since I do NHD, I do aerobics,”“I am becoming too fat now!,”“My husband now is much faster than I am when we walk or ride the bicycle,”“There is no reason now why I won't live long,”“I got an excellent, but demanding new job, which is possible thanks to NHD,”“Being a good team is a prerequisite for success,”“Don't expect too much. You will remain a chronic patient,”“Become confident with ‘conventional’ home hemodialysis first before you start NHD.” Conclusion: NHD results in a tremendous improvement of quality of life. However, patients and partners need active support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".