Increased prevalence of eosinophilia in a hemodialysis population: Longitudinal and case control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilia is commonly found in patients with clinical reactions to the hemodialysis circuit. With modern membranes, such reactions have become less common, but they may be under diagnosed in patients with subtle symptoms, in whom the presence of eosinophilia is an important diagnostic feature. Two case reports are presented, along with a hemodialysis study of the frequency and clinical associations of eosinophilia. In three hemodialysis facilities, all current hemodialysis patients with persistent eosinophilia (greater than 1 × 10(9) /L for 3 months) were identified. Control patients without eosinophilia (less than 0.5 × 10(9) /L for 3 months) matched for age, gender, and ethnicity were identified from the same facilities. A historical cohort of patients, dialyzing at the same facilities 5 years ago, was screened for the presence of persistent eosinophilia. From 510 patients, 24 cases of persistent eosinophilia were identified (4.7%). The median eosinophil count was 1.75 × 10(9) /L (range 1.1-7.5 × 10(9) /L). The prevalence in a historical cohort 5 years previously was significantly less at 1.5% (P = 0.046). Compared to controls, patients with eosinophilia were more likely to be on an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (41.7% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.049), had a lower C-reactive protein (10 vs. 24 mg/L, P = 0.02) and were more likely to be using a fistula for access (P = 0.049). Over the following 12 months, there was no difference in the mean number of hospital admission days between cases and controls (7.6 vs. 11.5 days, P = 0.54), and no difference in mortality over 29 months (25.0% vs. 29.2%, P = 1.00). Eosinophilia remains not uncommon in hemodialysis patients, and in most cases reflects allergy to components of the dialysis circuit, which is usually subclinical. The overall prognosis for asymptomatic patients appears to be favourable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".