Individualized reduction in dialysate sodium in conventional in‐center hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have focused on the association between dialysate sodium (Na(+)) prescriptions and interdialytic weight gain (IDWG). We report on a case series of 13 patients undergoing conventional, thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis with an individualized dialysate Na(+) prescription. Individualized dialysate Na(+) was achieved in all patients through a stepwise weekly reduction of the standard dialysate Na(+) prescription (140 mEq/L) by 2-3 mEq/L until reaching a Na(+) gradient of -2 mEq/L (dialysate Na(+) minus average plasma Na(+) over the preceding 3 months). Interdialytic weight gain, with and without indexing to dry weight (IDWG%), blood pressure, and the proportion of treatments with cramps, intradialytic hypotension (drop in systolic blood pressure >30 mmHg) and intradialytic hypotension requiring an intervention were reviewed. At the beginning of the observation period, the pre-hemodialysis (HD) plasma Na(+) concentration ranged from 130 to 141 mEq/L. When switched from the standard to the individualized dialysate Na(+) concentration, IDWG% decreased from 3.4% ± 1.6% to 2.5% ± 1.0% (P = 0.003) with no change in pre- or post-HD systolic or diastolic blood pressures (all P > 0.05). We found no significant change in the proportion of treatments with cramps (6% vs. 13%), intradialytic hypotension (62% vs. 65%), or intradialytic hypotension requiring an intervention (29% vs. 33%). Individualized reduction of dialysate Na(+) reduces IDWG% without significantly increasing the frequency of cramps or hypotension.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".