Does hemodiafiltration reduce vascular stiffness measured by aortic pulse wave velocity compared with high‐flux hemodialysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemodialfiltration (HDF) has been reported to reduce the frequency of intradialytic hypotension compared with hemodialysis (HD). We wished to determine whether HDF resulted in improvement of arterial stiffness compared with HD. We reviewed peripheral blood pressure and pulse wave velocity measurements in a cross-sectional analysis of stable HDF and HD outpatients. One hundred forty-one HDF patients were matched to 148 HD patients in terms of age, sex, prevalence of diabetes, peripheral blood pressure, and body mass. Pulse wave velocity was not different between the HD and HDF cohorts (median 9.1 [8.0-10.7] m/s vs. 9.7 [8.5-11.6] m/s). Similarly, there were no differences in central aortic pressure (149.2 ± 30.9 mmHg vs. 151.9 ± 35.2 mmHg), or aortic (39 [25.1-51.2]% vs. 38.6 [25.8-51.4]%) and brachial (3.8 [-24.3 to 26.9]% vs. 3 [-22.4 to 27.1]%) augmentation indices, respectively. Pulse wave velocity did not differ between adult patients treated by HD and HDF, and similarly, there were no differences in central aortic pressure, aortic or brachial augmentation indices, and cardiac diastolic perfusion. Our study suggests that HDF does not appear to offer any benefit over HD in terms of vascular stiffness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".