Costs of Quotidian Home Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the deterrents to more widespread adoption of quotidian dialysis is concern over increased supply and equipment costs. Purpose: Operating costs for short-hour daily (SHD) and slow nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) were compared with those of conventional hemodialysis patients (CHD). Methods: 10 SHD, 12 NHD and 22 matched CHD patients were enrolled in the study for 18 months. Costs were tracked in two groupings: Patient Measured (PM- dependent on patient's health status) and Support Modeled (SM- system costs to support all patients). A retrospective analysis of the previous year's PM costs was also performed. Results: SHD patients saw an increase in PM costs, as treatment supply increases were not offset by decreases in consults, drugs, hospitalizations and lab tests. NHD patients saw their total PM costs drop as drug, consults and lab savings more than offset higher supplies costs. CHD patient study costs were between the SHD and NHD values. SHD and NHD achieved lower SM costs due to savings in RN and other labor expenses that more than offset higher machine, water and biomedical costs. Note that substantial variance coupled with small sample size prevented achievement of statistically significant values. Costs Daily (SHD) Nocturnal (NHD) Control (CHD) ($Can) Retro Study Retro Study Study PM 38,290 40,691 53,028 47,411 33,923 SM 38,765 26,590 38,765 26,960 38,765 Total 77,055 67,281 91,793 74,371 72,688 Conclusions: SHD and NHD patients appeared to achieve clinical benefits compared to CHD patients while reducing total PM and SM cost.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".