The effects of nocturnal hemodialysis compared to conventional hemodialysis on change in left ventricular mass: Rationale and study design of a randomized controlled pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) is an alternative to conventional three times per week hemodialysis (CvHD) and has been reported to improve several health outcomes. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared NHD and CvHD. We have undertaken a multi-center RCT in hemodialysis patients comparing the effect of NHD to CvHD on left ventricular (LV) mass, as measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMR). METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: All patients in Alberta, Canada, expressing an interest in performing NHD are eligible for the study. Patients enrolled in the study will be randomized to either NHD or CvHD for a six month period. All patients will have a full clinical assessment, including collection of biochemical and cMR data at baseline and at 6 months. Both groups of patients will be monitored biweekly to optimize blood pressure (BP) to a goal of <130/80 mmHg post-dialysis using a predefined BP management protocol. The primary outcome is change in LV mass, a surrogate marker for cardiac mortality, measured at baseline and 6 months. The high sensitivity and reproducibility of cMR facilitates reduction of the required sample size and the time needed between measures compared with echocardiography. Secondary outcomes include BP control, anemia, mineral metabolism, health-related quality of life, and costs. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study will be the first RCT evaluating health outcomes in NHD. The impact of NHD on LV mass represents a clinically important outcome which will further elucidate the potential benefits of NHD and guide future clinical endpoint studies.
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 | 0.078 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".