Comparison of intradialytic blood pressure variability between conventional thrice‐weekly hemodialysis and short daily hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intradialytic blood pressure (BP) variability may be associated with increased mortality. We examined the effect of short daily hemodialysis (SDHD) on intradialytic BP variability relative to conventional thrice-weekly HD (CHD). This is a retrospective cohort study. Subjects were those converted from CHD to SDHD (n=12). All intradialytic BPs were collected on the last month of CHD, and on month 6 of SDHD. Absolute predialysis BP level and intradialytic BP variability were defined as the intercept and average residual terms, respectively, from a mixed-effects linear regression model of time on BP. Dialysis modality was a predictor variable (CHD vs. SDHD). Outcome variables were intradialytic BP variability and hypotension (BP<90/55 mmHg at any time during HD). In addition to a predictor and outcomes, the demographics, estimated dry weight, and ultrafiltration ratio were examined. The median (range) age of the patients was 48 (34-77); all had hypertension, and 4 (33%) had diabetes. By a mixed effects linear regression model, the intradialytic systolic BP variability was 13.2 (quartile range 9.5-14.0) mmHg and 10.0 (8.3-10.9) mmHg for CHD and SDHD, respectively (P<0.006). Intradialytic diastolic BP variability was also significantly reduced (7.7 [6.4-9.2] vs. 6.1 [5.5-6.6] mmHg, P=0.005). Relative to CHD, less hypotension was observed during treatment on SDHD: the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.36 (0.16-0.81; P=0.008). In this retrospective study, SDHD was associated with less intradialytic BP variability and with fewer episodes of hypotension during treatments. Further studies are necessary to generalize these findings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".