Superior patient and technique survival with very high standard <scp>K</scp>t/<scp>V</scp> in quotidian home hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the association of patient and dialysis factors with patient and technique survival in a cohort of all of our 191 of patients surviving >3 months on quotidian home hemodialysis (QHHD). Eighty-one patients were on nocturnal QHHD and 110 on short -daily QHHD. Weekly dialysis time was 7.5-48 hours, single pool Kt/V was 0.38-4.5 per treatment, and weekly standardKt/V was 2.1-7.5. The association of 18 patient and dialysis variables with patient and technique survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses. Ninety-nine patients (52%) remained on QHHD, 34 (18%) were transplanted, 31 (16%) returned to 3/week HD, and 27 (14%) died. The 5-year patient survival was 71% ± 6% (night: 79% ± 7%, day: 69% ± 9%, P = 0.002). The 5-year technique survival was 80% ± 4% (night: 93% ± 3%, day: 46% ± 17%, P = 0.001). In Cox analyses, patient survival was independently associated with standard Kt/V (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.29, P < 0.0001), graduating from high school (HS) (HR = 0.11, P = 0.0002), and use of graft/fistula (HR = 0.22, P = 0.007). Technique survival was independently associated with standard Kt/V (HR = 0.50, P = 0.0003) and start of QHHD after 2003 (HR = 0.18, P = 0.007). Every increase in standard Kt/V was associated with improved survival. The highest survival occurred when standard Kt/V exceeded 5.1, only possible when weekly dialysis hours exceed 35 hours. In QHHD, higher standard Kt/V, education, and subcutaneous access are associated with better patient survival and higher standard Kt/V and longer experience of center with better technique survival. There was no upper limit of standard Kt/V, where survival plateaus. The amount of minimally "adequate" dialysis should be much increased.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".