Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent dialyses are sometimes perceived as increasing the risk of blood access malfunction and decreased longevity. This review of the literature, however, indicates that the failure rates and overall fistula survival appear to be better with more frequent dialyses than with routine dialysis frequency, although the reasons for this phenomenon are not clear. One of the possible explanations is that frequent dialyses are associated with fewer intradialytic hypotensive episodes, which are very detrimental to the blood access. Another possible explanation is the generally lower blood flow used with more frequent hemodialyses, particularly long nocturnal hemodialysis. Finally, a decreased clotting tendency and decreased rates of hematoma formation at the puncture sites are additional possible explanations. Complication rates with bridge grafts are not higher with more frequent compared to routine thrice-weekly hemodialysis sessions. No such comparative data are available, however, for central-vein catheters. This lack of comparisons seems to stem from the intuitive assumption by nephrologists that hemodialyses that are more frequent should not adversely impact catheter complication rates and survival. No data at all are available on the use of the Dialock(R) hemodialysis system (Biolink Corp., Norwell, MA, USA) and LifeSite hemodialysis access system (Vasca, Inc., Tewksbury, MA, USA), two newer forms of hybrid access in patients undergoing frequent hemodialyses. Current evidence shows that the perceived risk of blood access malfunction and decreased longevity when patients undergo more frequent hemodialysis is not supported by the current literature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".