Why Our Patients Like Daily Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The option of daily hemodialysis (HD) was discussed in November 1998 with a group of 35 HD patients on home or self-care/limited-care HD in a single, freestanding unit. After the meeting, 3 patients on home HD chose to switch to daily HD. The clinical success of the first patient and the immediate followers was one of the main reasons for further extension of this experience. At the time of this writing (February 2000), 10 patients were on a daily HD program (8 at home and 2 in a self-care/limited-care center) and one was in training for home daily HD. One further patient who tried 1 month of daily HD dropped out for logistic reasons. On daily HD, patients are dialyzed 2 - 3 hours/day, 6 days/ week, with blood flow of 270 - 300 mL/min, on bicarbonate dialysate with individually determined levels of Na and K. The schedule is flexible and a switch to 3 - 4 dialyses/week is occasionally allowed for working needs or for vacation. In addition to the well-known clinical advantages (better well-being, blood pressure control, nutrition, etc.), some patients preferred daily HD because of easier organization of daily activities, including work schedule. Patients initially feared frequent needle punctures and excessive burden on partners, but those concerns proved to be less a problem than anticipated. All current patients are willing to continue daily HD; only a nursing shortage limits further extension of the program in the self-care/limited-care center.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".