Effect of High-Flux Hemodialysis on Cardiac Structure and Function among Patients with End-Stage Renal Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of high flux hemodialysis on left ventricular function in ESRD patients was evaluated in a double blind, single cross-over, study comparing conventional to high flux hemodialysis. The subjects were 21 stable chronic hemodialysis patients. Ten were randomly allocated to the conventional-high flux sequence and 11 to the reverse sequence. The conventional membrane was the CD 3,500 or 4,000; the high flux membrane was the Duoflux (Althin Medical Inc., Miami Lakes, Fla.). Both were cellulose acetate and both were sterilized with ethylene oxide. The dialysate bicarbonate and sodium were held constant for the study. The ultrafiltration rates were 3.5-5.0 ml/h/mm Hg transmembrane pressure for the conventional and 15 ml/h/mm for the high flux membrane. The beta-2-microglobulin sieving coefficient was 0 for conventional and 0.27 for the high-flux membrane. The modest improvements in estimates of systolic function suggest a cardiac advantage in high-flux dialysis, the clinical impact of which requires further study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".