The influence of blood volume‐controlled ultrafiltration on hemodynamic stability and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialysis hypotension occurs frequently and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and may influence quality of life. We investigated the influence of blood volume (BV)-controlled ultrafiltration on hemodynamic stability and quality of life in a prospective multiple crossover study. Nineteen patients were consecutively treated with standard hemodialysis (HD), BV-controlled ultrafiltration, and again with standard ultrafiltration during 3-week phases, during which different hemodynamic parameters, ultrafiltrate quantities, dry weight, and quality of life were measured. Blood volume-controlled ultrafiltration resulted in increased hemodynamic stability: systolic blood pressure was significantly higher after treatment with BV-controlled HD compared with both standard treatments (p=0.018 and 0.043, respectively). Also, systolic blood pressure reduction, as a measure of blood pressure stability, was significantly smaller during the BV-controlled phase (-3.9 mmHg) compared with both standard phases (-13.7 and -11.0 mmHg): p=0.003 and 0.035, respectively. No difference was found in the occurrence of large decreases of blood pressure (>30 mmHg), decreases below 90 mmHg systolic pressure, or subjective complaints during treatment or after treatment between both treatment modalities. During the course of the study, the dry weight decreased significantly from mean 73.3 to mean 70.9 kg, and the amount of ultrafiltrate was significantly larger using BV-controlled HD compared with standard treatment (mean 2407 vs. mean 2266 mL; p=0.035). Quality of life, measured by visual analog scales (VAS), showed discrete but no consistent differences between study phases. We conclude that BV-controlled HD increases hemodynamic stability and ultrafiltrate amount compared with a standard treatment. No consistent change in quality of life is found between both treatment modalities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".