Less‐oxidative hemodialysis solution rendered by cathode‐side application of electrolyzed water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrolyzed water (EW) generated on the cathode side reportedly displays anti-oxidative properties, and application of EW to hemodialysis (HD) systems supposedly suppresses oxidative markers in patients on HD. However, most of the chemical properties and biological effects of such solutions remain unclear. This study aimed to examine those issues to clarify the scientific background for the clinical use of EW solution. Reverse osmosis water comprising EW from the cathode side (e-RO) was prepared and used to process a test HD solution (e-HD). Chemical and biological properties of these solutions were compared with controls. Redox properties were examined by chemiluminescence (CL) of the luminol-H(2)O(2) system. Biological effects of e-RO on human polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs) were tested with respect to the cellular protection against methylglyoxal, and with respect to the preservation of cellular function as to radical generation. Control HD solution presented the highest CL, followed by e-HD, control RO, suggesting a lower oxidative capacity for EW-based solutions. Increased levels of dissolved hydrogen were characteristic of e-RO and e-HD. Application of e-RO tended to be associated with less injury of PMNs by methylglyoxal, and with significantly higher levels of radical generation compared with the control. Compared with control HD, e-RO-based HD solution displays less-oxidative capacity in chemical terms, and may at least partly facilitate preservation of PMN viability. These results appear to offer a scientific basis for supporting the clinical challenge of applying this technology to HD treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".