WHAT “BLOOD VOLUME” DO WE DIALYZE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood volume changes [BV] during hemodialysis [HD] can be done by optical monitoring of hematocrit [het] eg by Crit-Line monitor. The hct differs in different parts of the body. The arterial hct is established after blood is mixed in the right heart. Only in the cardiopulmonary circuit [CP] is the hct uniform and representative of the value measured in the arterial HD line. □BV by Crit-line may only measure □CP volume. The “central blood volume” [CBV] is defined as the volume of blood in the heart, great vessels and lung capillaries and can be measured by indicator dilution methods during dialysis [Transonic HD monitor] from the cardiac output [CO] and the indicator transit time. Changes in □BV and CBV should be similar. The interrelationships of □BV and CBV plus those of CO were tested during HD following periods of UF and then subsequent vascular compartment refilling [R]. UF sufficient to cause □BV of-6.7%[±2.4;n=21] was associated with a reduction in CBV by 0.1L [±0.2] [relative fall 3.75%] and in CO of 0.94 L/min [± 1.8] [relative fall 10.5%]. The changes in these parameters all significantly correlated [r=min 0.46, p=min 0.012]. Following R to a □BV increase of 2.4% [± 1.3, n=11] CBV increased by 0.31 L [± 0.39], a relative change of +22% and CO by 1.07 L/min [±1.61] a change of +26%. The CBV and CO changes correlated [r=0.86, p=0.001] but all correlations with □BV were lost. These data suggest □BV and CBV refer to different “blood volumes” with changes moving in the same direction but at different rates. Changes in CO are closer related to changes in CBV than ± BV.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".