Citrate Formulation Determines Filter Lifespan during Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted an 8-month prospective single-center observational study in patients with acute kidney injury treated with continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) to compare the impact of two citrate formulations on filter lifespan (FLS). METHODS: Patients received CVVH at a delivered dose of 25 ml/kg/h. Multivariable linear regression was performed to assess the influence of different variables on circuit lifespan. RESULTS: We included 59 patients, 28 received the 10/2 formulation and 31 received the 18/0 formulation. Median (interquartile range) FLS was significantly prolonged with the 18/0 solution compared with the 10/2 solution (4.10 (2.45-5.75) vs. 2.68 (0.47-4.99) days, p = 0.001). No confounding variables (difference in ionized calcium target, citrate flow or dose, platelet count, hematocrit, vascular access location) affecting filter capacity or lifespan between the 2 formulations were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Under similar conditions of CVVH and calcium targets, a Prismocitrate 18/0 formulation significantly improved FLS as compared with Prismocitrate 10/2.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".