We Should Strive for Optimal Hemodialysis: A Criticism of the Hemodialysis Adequacy Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adequacy of hemodialysis is frequently equated with Kt/V(urea) , the amount of urea clearance (K) multiplied by time (t) and divided by urea distribution volume (V). Several formulas have been developed to calculate Kt/V(urea) from the pre- and post-dialysis urea concentrations. In three-times-weekly hemodialysis, a single pool (spKt/V(urea)) value of 1.3 per treatment is commonly considered to indicate adequate therapy. Despite providing the recommended spKt/V(urea) of 1.3 per treatment, short dialysis with rapid ultrafiltration is associated with multiple intradialytic and interdialytic complications. Patients experience cramps, nausea, vomiting, headaches, fatigue, hypotensive episodes during dialysis, and hangover after dialysis; patients remain fluid overloaded with subsequent poor blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and high cardiovascular mortality. According to Webster's dictionary, "optimal" means most desirable or satisfactory; "adequate" means sufficient for a specific requirement or barely sufficient or satisfactory. Optimal dialysis is the method of dialysis yielding results that cannot be further improved. New approaches, including hemeral quotidian or long nocturnal dialysis, provide opportunities to abandon the notion that adequate dialysis is "good enough" for our patients. Optimal dialysis should be our goal. Dialysis sessions should be long and frequent enough to provide excellent intra- and interdialytic tolerance of hemodialysis, normalization of serum calcium and phosphorus, blood pressure control, normal myocardial morphology and function, and hormonal balance, and to eliminate all, even subtle, uremic symptoms.
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".