Significance of Measurement for Colloid Osmotic Pressure during Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Colloid osmotic pressure (COP) in plasma rises by ultrafiltration during hemodialysis, and it consequently causes plasma refilling in which water moves from interstitial tissue to capillary space. Although hemodynamic stability is one of the important factors for good dialysis outcome, no informative and convenient indicators are available other than monitoring of blood pressure. Thus, we measured COP during hemodialysis whether COP can be used as an indicator for the hemodynamic status in comparison with hematocrit (Ht). Plasma osmolality, ultrafiltration volume, and the alteration of blood pressure were also measured to examine whether COP is associated with them. Method: Sixteen patients hospitalized in this hospital were examined. Amongst them, 10 patients underwent both dialysis and ultrafiltration, while 4 patients received only dialysis and 2 patients were with ultrafiltration only by extracorporeal ultrafiltration method. Ultrafiltration was performed with constant speed to the dry weight for 4 h. The measurements of COP, plasma osmolality, Ht levels, and blood pressure were performed at 30 min (12.5% of the total water removal), 1 h (25%), 2 h (50%), and 3 h (75%) after the start of hemodialysis and also at the end of dialysis (100%). Result: COP markedly rose by 26.0% (±13.3%) in the patients who received both dialysis and ultrafiltration, whereas Ht rose by only 13.6% (±5.21%). And the curve for COP increase was sigmoid shape, whereas that for Ht showed linear change. On the other hand, in the patients whose Ht levels showed low values, the curves for both COP and Ht showed similar pattern. Conclusion: These results suggest that COP is a more sensitive indicator to be monitored for the hemodynamic status than Ht during hemodialysis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".