Development of practice guidelines for hemodialysis in Egypt
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
Although hemodialysis is the main modaility of treatment of end-stage renal disease, no practice guidelines are available in Egypt. Applying international guidelines for hemodialysis would not be suitable or feasible, because of different health system and lack of resources. The aim of this project was the development of evidence- and consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis in Egypt. The Egyptian guidelines were adopted from the standards developed by The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (Canada), The National Kidney Foundation (USA), The Clinical Standards Board for Scotland (Scotland), and The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Canada). In addition, the guidelines published in Oxford Handbook of Dialysis were reviewed. Thereafter, a panel of Egyptian experts in the field of nephrology and hemodialysis was selected and invited to participate in this project. The Delphi technique was applied to build up the consensus among the experts on the formulated guidelines. The final version of the Egyptian Hemodialysis Practice Guidelines included five main sections; personnel, patient care practices, infection prevention and control, facility, and documentation/records. A consensus on practice guidelines for hemodialysis has been successfully produced and is supported by levels of evidence. The 12 Egyptian experts who participated in the Delphi technique and the reviewers assured the completeness and acceptability of the developed practice guidelines. Also, including experts from the university hospitals together with the Directorates of Cairo and Giza Health Affairs of the Egyptian Ministry of Health (MOH) avoided conflicts between clinical recommendations and feasible application in the MOH hemodialysis facilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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