FP733INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN HEMODIAFILTRATION (HDF) USE IN THE DIALYSIS OUTCOMES AND PRACTICE PATTERNS STUDY (DOPPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Aims: Compared to hemodialysis (HD), hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides a higher clearance of a broad spectrum of uremic toxins, including middle molecules. This effect is largely proportional to the convective component, i.e. to the replacement fluid volume. While results of comparative studies of HDF vs HD have been mixed, recent randomized trials suggest that high replacement volume HDF may be associated with improved morbidity and mortality. These findings may have in part resulted in increased HDF use. The current study provides updated data on HDF use in the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) cohort over the last 15 years. Methods: We included 32,958 patients from DOPPS phases 1-5 (1998-2014) who had been on renal replacement therapy for > 90 days and dialyzing 3x/week at study entry. HDF at baseline was defined as volume replacement fluid ≥ 4 L, or (if missing) based on reported type of modality. United States and Canada were excluded because HDF use is very rare.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".