Comparative Survival Literature in Intensive Hemodialysis: Limitations and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modality comparisons focusing on survival outcomes of nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) or short daily hemodialysis (SDHD) versus other treatment paradigms of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are sparse. The existing literature consists of cohort studies that are small, retrospective, underpowered, and poorly controlled. The only randomized controlled trial that included mortality as part of a complex composite endpoint is unable to provide information on survival only. Even if concerns with internal validity of this literature are set aside, the generalizability of a few hundred NHD and SDHD patients is an important consideration as it remains uncertain whether or not the purported survival benefits of intensive hemodialysis readily translate into similar benefits for the global ESRD population. The most feasible and definitive study design to compare NHD or SDHD to other treatment modalities (and to each other) is a large, prospective, matched cohort study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".