Effect of Dialysers on the Internal Pressure of the Eye in Hemodialysis Patients (Hemophane - Polysulphone - Helioxone)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the application procedure as well as the underlying primary illness, hemodialysis is potentially capable or causing many problems concerning the eye. In this study, we planned to conduct a research on the entire ophthalmic illnesses suffered by 254 patients treated in our center and particularly on the effects of different dialysers on the internal pressure of the eye both before and after dialysis. To this end, we conducted 1016 measurements on the said 254 patients in our center. Out of the said measurements, 330 were performed by using polysulphone, 320 by using hemophane and 366 by using Fx series Helioxone dialyser. The internal pressure of the patients’ eyes before and after dialysis were evaluated by the same physician using a non-contact tonometer. In this study, variations over 2mmHg between measurements taken before and after dialysis were considered to indicate increases or decreases. Consequently, we found out that the type of dialyser used affects the internal pressure of the eye differently. While the Fx series helioxone and polysulphone dialysers tended to cause the internal pressure of the eye to remain constant or decrease, hemophane dialysers tended to increase the said pressure. The difference was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). To end with, not only characteristic such as the patient's weight, the amount of liquid collected and the vascular entrance, but also the type of dialyser used play an important role on the differences of the internal pressure of the eye encountered during dialysis.
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".