Convective renal replacement therapies for acute renal failure and end‐stage renal disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although hemodialysis remains the primary treatment modality for the management of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), its clearance of relatively large-sized uremic toxins is limited due to its primarily diffusive nature. Moreover, recent studies suggesting conventional, diffusion-based therapies may be limited in their ability to influence outcome in ESRD patients indicate the need for alternative chronic dialysis approaches, an example of which is convective therapies. In an analogous manner, a reassessment of the dialytic management of critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) has also occurred recently based on clinical evidence that high-dose continuous hemofiltration improves survival. These recent clinical results suggest the utilization of convective therapies in both ARF and ESRD will increase in the future. This article provides a review of convective therapies, with an initial discussion of the determinants of convective solute removal. This is followed by a comprehensive overview of the manner in which hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration are applied clinically.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".