Patient preferences for in‐center intense hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of data on patient preferences for intense hemodialysis (IHD). In this study, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to identify patient preferences and patient-centered barriers for IHD. A questionnaire on preferences and anticipated barriers, anticipated benefits, and quality of life for three in-center IHD schedules (daytime 2 hr six times/week [DHD], nocturnal 8 hr three times/week [ND3], and nocturnal 8 hr six times/week [ND6]) was administered to 100 chronic hemodialysis patients. A majority of patients (68%) were willing to undergo DHD for symptomatic benefits or increase in survival. An increase in energy level (94%) and improvement in sleep (57%) were the most common potential benefits that would justify DHD, but only 19% would undergo DHD for an increase in survival of < or =3 years. Only 20% and 7% would consider ND3 and ND6, respectively. The most common reported barriers were inadequate time for self (50%) and family (53%), followed by transportation difficulties (53%). Most patients would undergo DHD for symptomatic or survival benefits, but not ND3 or ND6. Disruption of personal time, however, is an important consideration. Success of DHD program would depend on arrangements for transportation to dialysis unit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".