Relationship of Hypoalbuminemia to Multiple Clinical Factors in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that low albumin is correlated with higher morbidity and mortality in the dialysis population. The reasons for this are multi‐factorial and may be related to inadequate protein intake, infection and sepsis, inadequate dialysis, or catabolism of uremia. USRDS data show that ESRD Network 16 tends to have lower albumins compared to other ESRD Networks. Objective: To evaluate albumin status of HD patients at Puget Sound Kidney Centers, Everett, WA (ESRD Network 16) and identify potential factors that may put patients at risk of hypoalbuminemia. Methods: Clinical and biochemical data were collected for 3 months on 221 HD patients. Data included serum albumin (bromcresol purple), calcium, phosphorus, CO2, Hct, % saturation, ferritin, PTH, BUN, Kt/V, URR, nPCR, hours of HD treatment, interdialytic fluid weight gains, DW changes, incidence of infection and hospitalization, catheter use for dialysis access, presence of diabetes and other co‐morbidities, dialyzer reuse, social/psychological status, and use of nutrition supplements. All biochemical data were collected after the longest interdialytic period and analyzed at the same reference laboratory. Data were averaged for each patient for the 3 months and correlations between parameters were determined using Chi‐square analysis. Results: 25% of all patients had albumins <3.2 g/dL (reference range for normal population 3.5–5.0 g/dL). Patients with lower albumins were significantly more likely to have DM (p < 0.02), use catheters for HD access (p < 0.001), had infections during the previous month (p < 0.001), been hospitalized during the previous month (p < 0.002), have co‐morbid issues (p < 0.001), and use nutrition supplements (p < 0.002). No other factors were significantly correlated with lower albumin. Conclusion: Factors other than nutrition seem to be related to hypoalbuminemia. This study has prompted improved protocols for catheter care and use, infection control, and early intervention for nutrition supplement use. Increased screening and monitoring at‐risk patients (those with diabetes and other co‐morbid conditions) has resulted in improved patient care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".