Pre to post‐dialysis plasma sodium change better predicts clinical outcomes than dialysate to plasma sodium gradient in quotidian hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sodium balance across a hemodialysis treatment influences interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), pre-dialysis blood pressure, and the occurrence of intradialytic hypotension, which associate with patient morbidity and mortality. In thrice weekly conventional hemodialysis patients, the dialysate sodium minus pre-dialysis plasma sodium concentration (δDPNa+) and the post-dialysis minus pre-dialysis plasma sodium (δPNa+) are surrogates of sodium balance, and are associated with both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. However, whether δDPNa+ or δPNa+ better predicts clinical outcomes in quotidian dialysis is unknown. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical and demographic data from the Southwestern Ontario Regional Home Hemodialysis program, of all patients since 1985. In frequent nocturnal hemodialysis, δPNa+ was superior to δDPNa+ in predicting IDWG (R(2)=0.223 vs. 0.020, P=0.002 vs. 0.76), intradialytic change in systolic (R(2)=0.100 vs. 0.002, P=0.02 vs. 0.16) and diastolic (R(2)=0.066 vs. 0.019, P=0.02 vs. 0.06) blood pressure, and ultrafiltration rate (R(2)=0.296 vs. 0.036, P=0.001 vs. 0.52). In short hours daily hemodialysis, δDPNa+ was better than δPNa+ in predicting intradialytic change in diastolic blood pressure (R(2)=0.101 vs. 0.003, P=0.02 vs. 0.13). However, δPNa+ was better than δDPNa+ in predicting IDWG (R(2)=0.105 vs. 0.019, P=0.04 vs. 0.68) and pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure (R(2)=0.103 vs. 0.007, P=0.02 vs. 0.82). We also found that the intradialytic blood pressure fall was greater in frequent nocturnal hemodialysis patients than in short hours daily patients, when exposed to a dialysate to plasma sodium gradient. These results provide a basis for design of prospective trials in quotidian dialysis modalities, to determine the effect of sodium balance on cardiovascular outcome.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".