MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preserving Central Blood Volume: Changes in Body Fluid Compartments During Hemodialysis

2001· article· en· W2077456724 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody waterBody fluidHematocritFluid compartmentsBlood volumeExtracellular fluidHemodialysisUltrafiltration (renal)HemodynamicsMedicineTrunkIntravascular volume statusCardiologyInternal medicineNuclear medicineBody weightChemistryChromatographyExtracellularBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding of fluid changes during hemodialysis (HD is essential for reducing complications as well as efficacy of the procedure. Bioimpedance spectroscopy provides a non invasive method of measuring total body water (TBW), the distribution of intra (ICF) and extracellular (ECF) fluids, and their changes during HD. Segmental bioimpedance may be used to measure the same fluid shifts but from different body segments; the technique has previously been shown to com pare well with whole body measures. It is possible that fluid shifts occur differently in different body compartments during HD. Based on previous hemodynamic studies we postulated that during HD ultrafiltration (UF) the body attempts to preserve its central blood volume (cardiopulmonary circula tion plus great vessels), and thus fluid shifts would be greater from the periphery than from central compartments. To test this hypothesis, segmental bioimpedance (Xitron Technolo gies, San Diego, CA) was performed on 11 subjects undergoing HD where ECF and ICF values were obtained from the legs, arms and trunk before and after a period of UF. Blood volume change (ABV%) was also followed using an on-line optical hematocrit (Hct) sensor (Crit-Line monitor, In-Line Diagnostics, UT) where deltaBV% = deltaBV% = (1 - Hct1/Hct0) x 100 (Hct0 = baseline Hct; Hct1 = postultrafiltration Hct) The UF of 2.0 L +/- 0.79 L (M +/- SD) over 75 minutes was associated with a deltaBV% of -9.43% +/- 3.6% (M +/- SD), a significant (Student's paired t-test) reduction in total body (TB) ECF (p < 0.02), a weak correlation in reduction in TBW (p = 0.09) but not in TB ICF. The ECF reductions from the trunk, legs, and arms were all significant (minimum p < 0.02); no ICF changes from these compartments were significant. The amount of ECF reduction was greater from the legs (0.7 L +/- 0.6 L) than the arms (0.12 L +/- 0.08 L) and trunk (0.2 L +/- 0.2 L) (all M +/- SD). Multiple regression analysis showed that TB ECF changes correlated strongly with leg (r = 0.94, p < 0.001) and arm (r = 0.72, p = 0.002) ECF changes but not with trunk changes. deltaBV% correlated weakly with leg (r = 0.45, p = 0.08) and arm (r = 0.42, p = 0.10) ECF changes but not with the trunk. As the deltaBV% represents the net volume change between UF and plasma water refilling, thiss indicates that plasma water is being removed more from the peripheral compartments than from the trunk. These data suggest that plasma refilling during HD to preserve central blood volume is more dynamic from the leg ECF than from elsewhere and may, in turn, explain the frequent occurrence of leg cramps during and after hemodialysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it