Dialyzer reuse and clinical outcomes—A 3‐year comparison between high flux polysulfone and polyflux® dialyzers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated improvements in dialyzer reuse parameters and clinical outcomes associated with a CQI project in a hospital‐based dialysis center in which high flux polysulfone dialyzers were replaced with high flux Polyflux® dialyzers (GAMBRO® Renal Products). Methods: Dialyzers were reprocessed using a Renatron® II Dialyzer Reprocessing System in conjunction with Renalin® sterilant (Minntech Corp.). Renalog® RM software was used to track dialyzer reprocessing rates and failures. Reasons for dialyzer failure included inadequate dialyzer volume; excess pressure; appearance; clotting during use; and maximum number of uses reached. The average number of dialyzer reuses with polysulfone dialyzers between January and June 2002 were compared to that achieved with Polyflux® dialyzers for the same periods in 2003 and 2004. Analysis periods were separated to avoid the impact of dialyzer transition on clinical parameters. Achievement of URR goals during these same periods was likewise compared. Results: Transition from polysulfone to Polyflux® dialyzers was associated with a >40% increase in average number of reuses between 2002 and 2003 and a >63% increase comparing the 2002 and 2004 periods. During the 2002 analysis period with polysulfone dialyzers the target URR of 65% was achieved in approximately 75% of hemodialysis patients; this increased to nearly 95% with Polyflux® dialyzers in both the 2003 and 2004 periods, despite more reprocessing of these dialyzers. Conclusions: These results demonstrate an improvement in both reuse efficiency and clinical outcomes associated with Polyflux dialyzers. Identifying clinical products through CQI studies that provide an economic and clinical advantage plays an important role in the success of hospital‐based hemodialysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".