MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221672388 · doi:10.2215/cjn.00200115

Randomized Controlled Trial of Individualized Dialysate Cooling for Cardiac Protection in Hemodialysis Patients

2015· article· en· W2221672388 on OpenAlex
Aghogho Odudu, Mohamed Tarek Eldehni, Gerry P McCann, Christopher W. McIntyre

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationAmerican Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialHemodialysisInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients on hemodialysis (HD). HD-associated cardiomyopathy is appreciated to be driven by exposure to recurrent and cumulative ischemic insults resulting from hemodynamic instability of conventionally performed intermittent HD treatment itself. Cooled dialysate reduces HD-induced recurrent ischemic injury, but whether this confers long-term protection of the heart in terms of cardiac structure and function is not known. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Between September 2009 and January 2013, 73 incident HD patients were randomly assigned to a dialysate temperature of 37°C (control) or individualized cooling at 0.5°C below body temperature (intervention) for 12 months. Cardiac structure, function, and aortic distensibility were assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Mean between-group difference in delivered dialysate temperature was 1.2°C±0.3°C. Treatment effects were determined by the interaction of treatment group with time in linear mixed models. RESULTS: There was no between-group difference in the primary outcome of left ventricular ejection fraction (1.5%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 7.3%). However, left ventricular function assessed by peak systolic strain was preserved by the intervention (-3.3%; 95% confidence interval, -6.5% to -0.2%) as was diastolic function (measured as peak diastolic strain rate, 0.18 s(-1); 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.34 s(-1)). Reduction of left ventricular dilation was demonstrated by significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (-23.8 ml; 95% confidence interval, -44.7 to -2.9 ml). The intervention was associated with reduced left ventricular mass (-15.6 g; 95% confidence interval, -29.4 to -1.9 g). Aortic distensibility was preserved in the intervention group (1.8 mmHg(-1)×10(-3); 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 3.6 mmHg(-1)×10(-3)). There were no intervention-related withdrawals or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients new to HD, individualized cooled dialysate did not alter the primary outcome but was well tolerated and slowed the progression of HD-associated cardiomyopathy. Because cooler dialysate is universally applicable at no cost, the intervention warrants wider adoption or confirmation of these findings in a larger trial.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.297 · 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