Antihypertensive prescription in pediatric dialysis: A practitioner survey by the Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have indirectly suggested the prescription of antihypertensive medications may contribute to blood pressure control in dialysis patients. Before exploring this largely unknown field, it is necessary to examine if there is diversity in antihypertensive prescription for dialysis patients. The questionnaire by the Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium was mailed to members of American Society of Pediatric Nephrology holding faculty positions in North America and Puerto Rico. Eighty-three (23.9%) of the mailed 357 surveys were analyzable. End-organ damage (43.2% respondents), interdialytic blood pressure levels (35.1%), achievement of dry weight (29.7%), duration of action of medications (25.7%), and underlying diseases (24.3%) were considered as the most important factor(s) in determining antihypertensive medications. For both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients, dihydropyridine-calcium channel blockers and angiotensin enzyme inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed medications. On scheduled hemodialysis days, 66.7% respondents withheld morning medications. Among them, two-thirds did not withhold all medications; they preferred withholding direct vasodilators (63.2%) > dihydropyridine-calcium channel blockers (50%) > beta-blockers (25%) > angiotensin enzyme inhibitors (21.9%). 60.7% respondents gave medications back postdialysis and 66.1% held medications only for morning dialysis. For nocturnal peritoneal dialysis patients, 85.9% and 91.1% respondents did not avoid certain medications in the evening and morning, respectively. For continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients, 10.8% respondents preferred giving medications in the morning while 74.3% had no preference. Antihypertensive prescription is quite diverse among pediatric nephrologists and its clinical significance requires further studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".