Concordance of absolute and relative plasma volume changes and stability of <scp><i>F</i></scp><sub>cells</sub> in routine hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central hematocrit (H) measurements are currently used to track the degree of ultrafiltration-induced hemoconcentration with the aim to detect and prevent excessive intravascular fluid depletion during hemodialysis (HD). Failure to maintain hemodynamic stability is commonly attributed to the misinterpretation of H caused by an unaccountable increase in Fcells , the ratio of whole-body hematocrit to H. It was the aim to examine Fcells under everyday conditions in a group of stable HD patients. Absolute plasma volume (Vp ) and H were concomitantly measured during routine HD in the extracorporeal system in hourly intervals by noninvasive and continuous technology (CritLine-Instrument-III) and indocyanine green dye dilution to derive relative plasma volumes from Vp and H (RPVp , RPVH ), respectively, and to calculate Fcells . Thirteen patients were studied during two midweek treatments (n = 26). Both absolute Vp (P < 0.05) and relative plasma volumes RPVH (P < 0.001) decreased during HD. Vp at any time point was positively correlated to RPVH (r = 0.52). Moreover, relative plasma volumes RPVH and RPVp determined by independent techniques were identical and showed negligible bias (-0.2%) but considerable limits of agreement (-15.6% to +15.3%). Fcells was stable and in the range of 0.9 ± 0.05 throughout HD and not different from the value assumed at the beginning of HD. Although Fcells remains constant in patients on routine dialysis and relative plasma volumes (RPVH and RPVp ) determined by independent techniques are therefore comparable, the variability of experimental conditions during dialysis and the limited accuracy of absolute volume measurements using available technology continues to complicate the ultrafiltration control problem.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".