Long‐term effects of daily hemodialysis on vascular access outcomes: A prospective controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily hemodialysis has been associated with surrogate markers of improved survival among hemodialysis patients. A potential disadvantage of daily hemodialysis is that frequent vascular access cannulations may affect long-term vascular access patency. The study design was a 4-year, nonrandomized, contemporary control, prospective study of 77 subjects in either 3-h daily hemodialysis (six 3-h dialysis treatments weekly; n = 26) or conventional dialysis (three 4-h dialysis treatments weekly; n = 51). Outcomes of interest were vascular access procedures (fistulagram, thrombectomy and access revision). Total access procedures (fistulagram, thrombectomy and access revision) were 543.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 432.9, 673.0) per 1000 person-years in the conventional dialysis group vs. 400.8 (95% CI: 270.2, 572.4) per 1000 person-years in the daily hemodialysis dialysis group (incidence rate ratio = 0.74 with 95% CI: from 0.40 to 1.36, P = 0.33), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes status, serum phosphorus, hemoglobin level and erythropoietin dose, there was no significant differences in incidence rate of total access procedures (P-value > 0.05). There was no difference in time to first access revision between the daily dialysis and the conventional dialysis groups after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio = 0.99 95% CI: 0.42, 2.36, P = 0.96). Daily hemodialysis is not associated with increased vascular access complications, or increased vascular access failure rates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".