DAILY HEMODIALYSIS—SELECTED TOPICS: Rationale and Experience with Short Daily Hemofiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have morbidity and mortality rates that are much higher than those found in the general population. The nonphysiologic nature of thrice-weekly hemodialysis may be partially responsible for the poor outcomes in this patient population. In response to the problems encountered with conventional hemodialysis schedules, a number of investigators have explored potential solutions to the problem. One such solution is to increase the time and/or frequency of hemodialysis. With this approach, ESRD patients have been observed to have better anemia management and blood pressure control, as well as improvements in quality of life. Hemodialysis is based on diffusion of solutes across a semipermeable membrane such that only small molecules are readily removed. Therefore a second solution has been to utilize hemofiltration instead of hemodialysis. Hemofiltration utilizes convective clearance of molecules, resulting in an improvement in the removal of larger solutes, much like the glomerular basement membrane of the kidney. Despite the accumulated evidence that thrice-weekly hemofiltration adds to the benefits seen with increasing hemodialysis time and/or frequency, the use of hemofiltration has been limited by the available technology, cost, and low access blood flows. However, current technological advances in equipment and access creation are addressing these problems. With these advances, a number of investigators have also explored the potential benefits of daily hemofiltration as a treatment option for ESRD. The preliminary results suggest that improvements in blood pressure, beta2-microglobulin (beta2M) levels, and quality of life are possible.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".