Is There a Necessity for Individual Blood Water Corrections when Conductivity-Based Access Blood Flow Measurements Are Made?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Access blood water flow rate (Qaw) can be measured during hemodialysis using an online effective ionic dialysance (EID) methodology. Fresenius employ this methodology in their 2008K dialysis machine. The machine computer converts Qaw to an access blood flow rate (Fresenius Qa) using a generic blood water constant (BWC). We wished to validate this BWC. METHODS: 18 patients had Fresenius Qa measurements using the EID and these were compared with a 'gold standard' ultrasound dilution methodology (Transonic Qa). Qa values were also obtained by removing the BWC from Fresenius Qa values to obtain the Qaw and recorrecting it with individualized patient factors using hematocrit and total protein values (HctTp Qa). The measurements were repeated after 1 h. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between Fresenius and Transonic, nor between HctTp and Transonic Qa values (p > 0.17). There were strong correlations between both sets of values (r > 0.856; p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between the pairs of Transonic Qa values (r = 0.823; p < 0.007), but not for Fresenius Qa pairs (r = 0.573; p > 0.07). It was surmised that the BWC was not valid post-dialysis. CONCLUSION: The generic BWC is comparable to individualized blood water correction factors when Qa measures are made early in dialysis and prior to ultrafiltration treatment.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it