Quotidian dialysis – update 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The interest in quotidian hemodialysis has increased further after the HEMO study reported that high-dose thrice-weekly hemodialysis failed to improve clinical outcomes. This, in combination with a significant volume of newly published data, made a review of the topic of quotidian hemodialysis timely. RECENT FINDINGS: The published research has revealed further evidence of cardiovascular and quality-of-life improvements as well as financial benefits with quotidian hemodialysis. Accrued worldwide experience has confirmed the previously published benefits of quotidian hemodialysis. There has been a significant effort by industry to produce patient-friendly machines for home hemodialysis. Reports on the use of daily hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration in children have appeared. An international registry of patients on quotidian hemodialysis has been created. The need for modification of the funding mechanisms and the lack of prospective randomized controlled studies on quotidian hemodialysis led to the funding of such studies by the National Institutes of Health in collaboration with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to be completed by 2008. The proper funding for daily home hemodialysis was secured in the province of British Columbia, Canada, and is under consideration elsewhere. SUMMARY: There is increasing evidence confirming that quotidian hemodialysis improves clinical outcomes in a cost-efficient manner. Provided that the reimbursement issues are resolved these modalities may be utilized extensively at home as well as in the in-center facilities. The revitalization of home hemodialysis will compensate for the decline in utilization of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and the nursing shortage encountered in most countries.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".