Vascular refilling is independent of volume overload in hemodialysis with moderate ultrafiltration requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Blood volume changes and vascular refilling during hemodialysis (HD) and ultrafiltration (UF) have been assumed to depend on volume overload (Vo ). It was the aim to study the magnitude of vascular refilling in stable HD patients with moderate volume expansion in everyday dialysis using novel technical approaches. Methods Patients were studied during routine dialysis and UF based on clinical dry weight assessment. Pre-dialysis Vo was independently measured by bioimpedance spectroscopy. Vascular refilling volume (Vref ) was calculated as: Vref = Vuf - ΔV, where ΔV is the absolute blood volume change determined by on-line dialysate dilution using a commercial on-line hemodiafiltration machine incorporating a relative blood volume monitor, and where Vuf is the prescribed UF volume. Findings Thirty patients (dry weight: 81.0 ± 17.8 kg) were studied. Pre-dialysis Vo was 2.46 ± 1.45 L. Vuf was 2.27 ± 0.71 L, specific UF rate was 6.45 ± 2.43 mL/kg/h, and since ΔV was 0.66 ± 0.31 L, Vref was determined as 1.61 ± 0.58 L, corresponding to a constant refilling fraction (Fref ) of 70.6 ± 10.6%. Vref strongly correlated with Vuf (r(2) = 0.82) but was independent of Vo and other volumes. Fref was also independent of Vo and other volumes normalized for various measures of body size. Discussion While vascular refilling and Fref is independent of Vo in treatments with moderate UF requirements, intravascular volume depletion increases with increasing UF requirements. The relationship between blood volume and Vo needs to be more closely examined in further studies to optimize volume control in everyday dialysis.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".