DAILY HEMODIALYSIS—SELECTED TOPICS: An International Registry to Compare Quotidian Dialysis Regimens with Conventional Thrice‐Weekly Hemodialysis: Why, How, and Potential Pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thrice-weekly hemodialysis is the most commonly used form of renal replacement therapy, yet it is associated with unacceptably high morbidity and mortality. Attempts to improve outcomes for hemodialysis patients by increasing their per-session dose of dialysis have recently proven unsatisfactory in the multicentered Hemodialysis (HEMO) study. Interest has thus turned to increasing dialysis frequency. Short daily and long nocturnal dialysis, which are typically performed 6 days per week, are gaining acceptance and are associated with significant improvements in secondary outcomes, including nutrition, left ventricular hypertrophy, hypertension, anemia, and calcium-phosphorus balance. Studies to date have not been adequately powered to detect the survival benefits that these changes may confer. Large-scale randomized studies are planned, but will likely not answer the survival question for several years. Until this issue is resolved, funding policies are unlikely to change, confining current dialysis patients to potentially suboptimal therapy. By capturing data from current and future daily dialysis patients using an international registry, a survival benefit might be demonstrated more quickly. Such a project will soon be undertaken by the London Daily/Nocturnal Study Group with endorsement from the International Society for Hemodialysis and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. This database will also provide useful descriptive data that will help develop methodologies in this growing field. Historically the interpretation of dialysis registry data has been plagued with various methodological problems. These are briefly reviewed, and some potential solutions and necessary precautions are discussed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".