Portable and wearable dialysis: where are we now?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although dialysis is a life-saving treatment for patients with acute and chronic kidney disease, mortality remains high, with the survival of patients treated by regular hemodialysis similar to that of some solid organ tumors. Recent reports have suggested that a major increase in the dose of dialysis, delivered by frequent nocturnal dialysis, may improve survival. Unfortunately, only a minority of centers can offer this type of therapy, and only to a minority of their patients. Thus, to improve access to dialysis as well as increase the delivered dose of dialysis, a major change in the current paradigm of dialysis delivery is required. For many years, the "holy grail" of dialysis has been to develop a wearable or portable system, allowing patients to be treated while performing their normal activities of daily living. It is only recently with the advances in technology that such dialysis devices have been possible. Prototype devices for both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis have been studied with favorable results. Typically, these have been short-term studies, and longer term trials are eagerly awaited, to determine whether the current generation of wearable continuous dialysis devices cannot only remove waste products of metabolism and control volume but also maintain acid-base and electrolyte homeostasis and actually improve outcomes. In addition, a novel generation of dialysis devices based on nanotechnologies are being developed. Hopefully, these wearable continuous devices will be available as an option for routine clinical practice in the not-too-distant future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".