MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218160144 · doi:10.1186/s40697-015-0090-5

Fluid Volume Expansion and Depletion in Hemodialysis Patients Lack Association with Clinical Parameters

2015· article· en· W2218160144 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia Kalainy, R.D. Reid, Kailash Jindal, Neesh Pannu, Branko Braam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisIntravascular volume statusVolume expansionVolume (thermodynamics)Internal medicinePopulationHypervolemiaBlood volumeMultivariate analysisVolume overloadBioelectrical impedance analysisCardiologyBody mass indexBlood pressureHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Achievement of normal volume status is crucial in hemodialysis (HD), since both volume expansion and volume contraction have been associated with adverse outcome and events. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to assess the prevalence of fluid volume expansion and depletion and to identify the best clinical parameter or set of parameters that can predict fluid volume expansion in HD patients. DESIGN: This study is cross-sectional. SETTING: This study was conducted in three hemodialysis units. PATIENTS: In this study, there are 194 HD patients. METHODS: Volume status was assessed by multifrequency bio-impedance spectroscopy (The Body Composition Monitor, Fresenius) prior to the mid-week HD session. RESULTS: Of all patients, 48 % (n = 94) were volume-expanded and 9 % of patients were volume-depleted (n = 17). Interdialytic weight gain was not different between hypovolemic, normovolemic, and hypervolemic patients. Fifty percent of the volume-expanded patients were hypertensive. Paradoxical hypertension was very common (31 % of all patients); its incidence was not different between patient groups. Intradialytic hypotension was relatively common and was more frequent among hypovolemic patients. Multivariate regression analysis identified only four predictors for volume expansion (edema, lower BMI, higher SBP, and smoking). None of these parameters displayed both a good sensitivity and specificity. LIMITATIONS: The volume assessment was performed once. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that volume expansion is highly prevalent in HD population and could not be identified using clinical parameters alone. No clinical parameters were identified that could reliably predict volume status. This study shows that bio-impedance can assist to determine volume status. Volume status, in turn, is not related to intradialytic weight gain and is unable to explain the high incidence of paradoxical hypertension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207