Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis: Focus on the Partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD, 6 times weekly 6–8 hours) results in a better clinical and psychosocial condition of dialysis patients. However, this intensive therapy has important consequences for partners, who bear at least some responsibilities during the treatment. Methods. Since December 2001, we included 15 patients in a Dutch NHD project (‘Nocturne’). All patients are assisted by their spouses. An aim of Nocturne is to study the effects of NHD on partners and other family members with questionnaires and interviews by a social worker. Results. NHD affects daily life of partners much more than conventional therapies. Partners feel very involved with the treatment. The invasion of the treatment in bed, the noise and light produced by the machine, the daily assisting of the patient, less freedom, and co-responsibility for the treatment are felt as a burden, specially during the first months of the treatment. However, the improved clinical condition of their spouse, resulting in less fatigue, less disability, less uremic symptoms, less complications, more attention for and contribution to family life, better quality of life and better mood are considered major improvements, with important positive effects for the quality of life of all family members. Additionally, partners consider the fact that they make an important positive contribution to their spouse's health valuable. All partners judged NHD, despite some negative consequences, as a major improvement of their life. Conclusion. The positive effects of NHD are more important than the negative consequences for partners of patients. However, partners need active support by nurses or social workers, specially during the first months of the 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".