Meal replacements as a strategy for weight loss in obese hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction There is currently limited evidence on the use or safety of meal replacements as part of a low– or very–low‐calorie diet in patients with renal insufficiency; however, these are occasionally used under dietetic supervision in clinical practice to achieve the desired weight loss for kidney transplant. This case series reports on the safety and efficacy of a weight loss practice utilizing meal replacements among hemodialysis patients, who needed to lose weight for kidney transplant. Methods Five hemodialysis patients were prescribed a modified low‐calorie diet (950 kcal and 100 g protein per day) comprising three meal replacements (Optifast®), one main meal, and two low‐potassium fruits per day. Dietary requirements and restrictions were met for all participants. Dialysis prescriptions, weight (predialysis and postdialysis), interdialytic weight gain, biochemistry, and medications were monitored during the study period for up to 12 months. Findings Participants were aged between 46 and 61 years, and the median time on the low‐calorie diet was 364 days. Phosphate binders were temporarily ceased for one participant for reasons unrelated to this program and no other safety concerns were recorded. The low‐calorie diet resulted in energy deficits ranging from 1170 kcal to 2160 kcal, and all participants lost weight (median 7% [range 5.2%–11.4%]). The most dramatic weight change appeared to occur by week 12, and declining adherence led to erratic weight change thereafter. Discussion This modified low‐calorie diet was safe and effective to use in this population. Meal replacements are a useful weight loss strategy in hemodialysis patients, therefore, offering an alternative to usual weight loss protocols.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".