Comparison of Volume Overload with Cycler-Assisted versus Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cycler-assisted peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) has been associated with decreased sodium removal compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) as a result of peritoneal sodium sieving during the short dwells that are associated with CCPD. This may have adverse consequences for management of extracellular fluid volume (ECFV). This study compared ECFV in patients who received CAPD or CCPD; CCPD dwell times were maximized by limiting the number of exchanges, and the use of icodextrin for the long daytime dwells was widespread. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was an observational, cross-sectional study of 158 prevalent patients (90 CAPD, 68 CCPD). Demographic data, blood work, and 24-h dialysate and urine samples were collected from all participants between January 2004 and July 2006. They subsequently underwent assessment of ECFV by multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the relationship between peritoneal dialysis modality and ECFV. Potential cofounders including age, comorbidity, time on dialysis, residual renal function, and icodextrin use were identified a priori. RESULTS: There were no differences in BP, use of antihypertensive medications, or the presence of peripheral edema between CAPD and CCPD patients. Similarly, there was no difference in the ratio of ECFV to total body water between CAPD (51.8%) and CCPD (51.9%) patients (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in BP, sodium removal, or volume control in patients who use a contemporary approach to CCPD that uses fewer night cycles and liberalizes the use of icodextrin when compared with CAPD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".