Short Daily Hemodialysis vs. Short Daily Hemofiltration (Search for Optimal Prescription)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that daily hemodialysis as well as convective transfer by hemofilitration improve the quality of extra renal treatment. Two following phases of treatment of three weeks each were tested in 2 patients: daily hemodialysis 2.5 h 6 times/week (HD*6) and daily hemofiltration 2.75 h 6 times/week (HF*6) performed according to the following modalities. Phase I, blood flow rates (QB): 300 mL/min, hemofilter 1.4 m2AN 69 dialysate flow 500 mL/min. Phase II, QB: 150 mL/min, hemofilter 1m2AN 69, exchange volume of 10 L/session; 5 L predilution and 5 L postdilution (conditions were limited by the device). We measured, during the third week of treatment of each phase, the weekly mass transfers and the predialysis plasma levels of urea (U), creatinine (C), phosphate (P), and B2 microglobulin (B2M). In the 2 phases, HD*6 and HF*6, respectively, the weekly urea Kt was: 120 vs. 60 L; std Kt/V: 3.30 vs. 2.0; npcr: 1.26 vs. 1.42 g kg–1 day–1. Mass transfer/week Predialytic levels/L HD*6 HF*6 HD*6 HF*6 U (mmol) 2366 2204 23.2 38.5 C (µmol) 67240 51096 769.5 934.8 P (mmol) 127 111.5 1.91 2.34 B2M (mg) 311 763.5 34.2 30.16 In HF*6, predialysis solute concentration increased and weekly small molecule mass transfer was insufficient. B2M mass transfer was significantly increased and predialytic plasma concentration decreased, showing a higher clearance of middle molecules with convective transfer. The clinical tolerance was excellent during the two phases of treatment. This study allows to determine the optimal conditions for adequate daily HF: higher QB and exchange volume. Further studies with QB of at least 300 mL/min and with exchange volume of 15 L/session seem to be necessary.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".