Randomized Trials of Frequent Hemodialysis – Infinite Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current understanding of the benefits of daily and nocturnal hemodialysis is limited by the designs used in previous studies which tested these therapies. There is increasing momentum to evaluate these therapies in randomized controlled trials. By establishing the efficacy, safety and delivery of daily and nocturnal hemodialysis, such trials will guide policy and funding decisions regarding the role of these therapies in the treatment of end-stage renal disease. However, in designing trials that fulfill these goals, many questions arise. What study population should be used? How should the intervention be defined? Which outcomes should be evaluated? Several methodological issues particular to trials of frequent dialysis require additional consideration. The 'ideal' trial in terms of methods must be balanced against the feasibility of implementation and budgetary constraints. Here, we explore some of these issues.
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 | 0.286 | 0.416 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".