Daily Dialysis: Toward a New Standard in Well‐Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily hemodialysis (DHD) is a promising option; however, logistic obstacles and clinical perplexities limit its dissemination. Understanding the mechanisms of, and the time until, the onset of improved well‐being may help to quantify clinical advantages and to define the minimum length of a “trial” of daily dialysis. By following 30 patients treated in 4 centers, this study aimed to determine how long a period of time is needed until a patient experiences subjective improvement. From November 1998 to November 2000, 30 patients tried at least 2 weeks of short daily dialysis in four Northern Italian centers of Piemonte and Valle d'Aosta. The DHD (2 – 3 hours; blood flow 270 – 350 mL/min; individual HCO3, Na, K) was performed at home or in a center. Motivations to try DHD, fears and concerns regarding DHD, and changes in perceived well‐being were assessed by semi‐structured interview. The main clinical indications for a trial of DHD were poor tolerance of conventional treatment, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension or hypotension; only 6 patients had no comorbidity at start. The patients' main reasons for choosing DHD were related to job problems and the search for a better treatment. Most of the patients continued DHD because of improved well‐being; logistic reasons accounted for the drop‐outs (5 patients). The main fears were related to logistic aspects, vascular access problems, and excessive involvement of the partner on home dialysis. Improved well‐being was reported by 28 of 30 patients; 2 patients reported no difference. Subjective improvement was perceived within 2 weeks in 22 of 30 patients, and within 1 month in 28 of 30 patients. An offer of a 2 – 4 week trial of DHD may help patients and caregivers to determine whether subjective and objective benefits outweigh logistic problems and whether a permanent transfer to DHD is worthwhile.
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 | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".