MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Estimation of Internal Filtration Flow Rate in a Dialyzer by a Doppler Ultrasonography

2004· article· en· W1919892857 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michio Mineshima, Yuichi Sato, I.i.t Akiba, Takashi Sunohara, T. Masuda

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiltration (mathematics)Blood flowVolumetric flow rateDoppler effectBiomedical engineeringFlow (mathematics)MechanicsFlow velocityChromatographyMaterials scienceChemistryMedicineCardiologyMathematicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several types of dialyzers with enhanced internal filtration have been introduced in order to increase solute clearance, especially in relatively larger molecular solutes. In these dialyzers, enhanced internal filtration increased convective transport of the solute in addition to diffusive transport. The internal filtration flow rate (QIF) has not, however, been measured in clinical situations, because none of monitoring techniques can measure this value. Herein, the QIF value was estimated during an experimental and an analytical study. Namely, we measured blood flow velocity in a cross‐sectional plane of the dialyzer by pulse Doppler ultrasonography. An in vitro study with bovine blood was carried out to determine the local blood flow velocity profile with a newly designed probe slider that enables parallel movement of the probe along the dialyzer. Furthermore, an analytical model was newly introduced to calculate changes in flow rate and pressure of blood and dialysate streams and solute concentrations along the dialyzer. The QIF value could be estimated by a simulation analysis to the experimental data using the analytical model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→