Effects of Six versus Three Times per Week Hemodialysis on Physical Performance, Health, and Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Relatively little is known about the effects of hemodialysis frequency on the disability of patients with ESRD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study examined changes in physical performance and self-reported physical health and functioning among subjects randomized to frequent (six times per week) compared with conventional (three times per week) hemodialysis in both the Frequent Hemodialysis Network daily (n=245) and nocturnal (n=87) trials. The main outcome measures were adjusted change in scores over 12 months on the short physical performance battery (SPPB), RAND 36-item health survey physical health composite (PHC), and physical functioning subscale (PF) based on the intention to treat principle. RESULTS: Overall scores for SPPB, PHC, and PF were poor relative to population norms and in line with other studies in ESRD. In the Daily Trial, subjects randomized to frequent compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis experienced no significant change in SPPB (adjusted mean change of -0.20±0.19 versus -0.41±0.21, P=0.45) but experienced significant improvement in PHC (3.4±0.8 versus 0.4±0.8, P=0.009) and a relatively large change in PF that did not reach statistical significance. In the Nocturnal Trial, there were no significant differences among subjects randomized to frequent compared with conventional hemodialysis in SPPB (adjusted mean change of -0.92±0.44 versus -0.41±0.43, P=0.41), PHC (2.7±1.4 versus 2.1±1.5, P=0.75), or PF (-3.1±3.5 versus 1.1±3.6, P=0.40). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent in-center hemodialysis compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis improved self-reported physical health and functioning but had no significant effect on objective physical performance. There were no significant effects of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis on the same physical metrics.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".