Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the principles and practice of peritoneal dialysis in veterinary medicine. DATA SOURCES: Clinical and experimental studies and current guideline recommendations from the human literature; and original case studies, case reports, and previous reviews in the veterinary literature. SUMMARY: Peritoneal dialysis involves the exchange of solutes and fluid between the peritoneal capillary blood and the dialysis solution across the peritoneal membrane. It requires placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter for repeated dialysate exchange. The ideal catheter provides reliable, rapid dialysate flow rates without leaks or infections. Catheter selection and placement are reviewed along with dialysate selection, exchange prescriptions, and overall patient management. PD does not require specific or complex equipment, and it can achieve effective control of uremia and electrolyte imbalances. CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal dialysis is a potential life-saving measure for patients with acute renal failure. Peritoneal dialysis results in gradual decline in uremic toxins. Previously low success rates have been reported. Improved success rates have been noted in dogs with acute kidney injury (AKI) secondary to leptospirosis. Cats also have a good success rate when PD is elected in patients with a potentially reversible underlying disease. Overall, PD remains a viable intervention for patients with AKI unresponsive to medical management. In select patients a favorable outcome is attained whereby PD provides temporary support until return of effective renal function is attained.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".