Patient Education and Its Effects on Calcium-Phosphate Balance in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calcium-phosphate imbalance is common in hemodialysis patients and is an important cause of increased morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of patient education in improving calcium-phosphate balance. This is a cross-sectional cohort study with a control group. Hemodialysis patients at 2 centers with serum phosphate levels ≥ 4.5 mg/dL and a Ca × P product > 55 mg2/dl2 were enrolled into the study. The patients were interviewed to determine their knowledge of phosphate binders, compliance and dietary restrictions. Formal counseling was provided to ensure that the patients were aware of the importance of taking their phosphate binders regularly and the adverse consequences of hyperphosphatemia. At the end of 3 months, the patients’ serum calcium and phosphate levels and CaxP product were measured. In the control arm, no formal counseling was done. 31 patients were enrolled in the study arm and 30 patients were controls. At the start of the study, 39% of patients in the study group were incompliant with their phosphate binders. After counseling, there was a significant decrease in the serum phosphate level (8.6 ± 0.4 vs 7.4 ± 0.6 mg/dl, p < 0.05) and Ca × P product (83.6 ± 4.9 vs 68.9 ± 5.6 mg2/dl2, p < 0.01) of the patients at one month. At 3 months, the mean serum phosphate level and Ca × P product had returned to baseline levels. No significant changes were noted in the control arm. This study suggests that patient education on the use phosphate binders had a positive impact on hyperphosphatemia. However, the effect was lost after one month and continuing patient education may be needed to achieve a long-term result.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".