Management of hypophosphatemia in nocturnal hemodialysis with phosphate-containing enema: A technical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypophosphatemia is observed in patients undergoing nocturnal hemodialysis. Phosphate is commonly added to the dialysate acid bath, but systematic evaluation of the safety and reliability of this strategy is lacking. The objectives of this study were 4-fold. First, we determined whether predictable final dialysate phosphate concentrations could be achieved by adding varying amounts of Fleet® enema. Second, we assessed the stability of calcium (Ca) and phosphate dialysate levels under simulated nocturnal hemodialysis conditions. Third, we assessed for Ca-phosphate precipitate. Finally, we evaluated whether dialysate containing Fleet® enema met the current sterility standards. We added serial aliquots of enema to 4.5 L of dialysate acid concentrate and proportioned the solution on Gambro and Althin/Baxter dialysis machines for up to 8 hours. We measured dialysate phosphate, Ca, pH, and bicarbonate concentrations at baseline, and after simulated dialysis at 4 and 8 hours. We evaluated for precipitation visually and by assessing optical density at 620 nm. We used inoculation of agar to detect bacteria and Pyrotell reaction for endotoxin. For every 30 mL of Fleet® (1.38 mmol/mL of phosphate) enema added, the dialysate phosphate concentration increased by 0.2 mmol/L. There were no significant changes in dialysate phosphate, Ca, pH, and bicarbonate concentrations over 8 hours. No precipitate was observed in the dialysate by optical density measures at 620 nm for additions of up to 90 mL of enema. Bacterial and endotoxin testing met sterility standards. The addition of Fleet® enema to dialysate increases phosphate concentration in a predictable manner, and no safety problems were observed in our in vitro studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".