Nocturnal dialysis: Comparing six night/week with alternate night therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biochemical, haemodynamic, clinical, and nutritional benefits of nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD) compared with (c/w) 4 hr, 3/week conventional haemodialysis (CHD) are well known and accrue by increasing dialysis time and frequency either for 8 hrs alternate night/week (NHD3.5) or for 8 hrs 6 nights/week NHD (NHD6). However, there is little data yet comparing NHD3.5 with NHD6. 13 NHD6(8.15 hrs/night) were c/w 14 NHD3.5(7.8 hrs/night), all with similar demographic profiles. NHD6 had unrestricted diet and fluid intake but NHD3.5 needed some restriction. Before (b) and after (a) HD phosphate (PO4) control was ideal though bPO4 levels for NHD6 were lower (1.64 mmol/l) c/w NHD3.5(1.83 mmol/l). All NHD6 needed PO4 supplementation c/w 2/14 NHD3.5 but 5/14 NHD3.5 needed PO4 binders c/w 0/13 NHD6. Both had normal blood pressures with 3/14 NHD3.5 needing anti‐hypertensives c/w 2/13 NHD6. The bHb was 122.8 g/l (NHD6) c/w 127.7 g/l (NHD3.5) and the balbumin was 38.3 g/l (NHD6) c/w 37.7 g/l (NHD3.5). NHD6 had lower b blood urea (10.2 c/w 19.5 mmol/l) and less interdialytic urea and creatinine fluctuation. NHD6 ultrafiltration rates (UFR) and intradialytic weight gains (mean ± SEM) were significantly lower (248 ± 22.7 ml/hr and 2.03 ± 0.19 kg) c/w NHD3.5(453 ± 34.6 ml/hr and 2.85 ± 0.27 kg): UFR p < 0.10. We conclude that NHD6 offers the optimum biochemical, volume, and clinical outcome but NHD3.5 still has a clear and major advantage over CHD and a dual additional appeal to providers seeking home‐based therapy cost advantages and consumable expenditure control. A flexible dialysis program should offer all the time and frequency options of NHD but, in particular, should support NHD at a frequency sympathetic to the clinical, rehabilitation, and lifestyle aspirations of individual patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".