Dialysate bicarbonate variation in maintenance hemodiafiltration patients: Impact on serum bicarbonate, intradialytic hypotension and interdialytic weight gain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The dialysate bicarbonate (DB) influences the acid-base balance in dialysis patients. Very low and high serum bicarbonate (SB) have been related with a higher mortality. Acid-base balance also has been associated with hemodynamic effects in these patients. The trial aim was to compare the effect of DB concentration variation on SB levels in maintenance hemodiafiltration (HDF) patients and the effect on intradialytic hypotension and interdialytic weight gain. METHODS: A prospective study, with 9 months of follow-up, involving 93 patients, divided in two groups: group 1 and group 2 with a DB of 34 mmol/L and 30 mmol/L, respectively, with monitoring of pre and post HDF SB, intradialytic hypotension, and interdialytic weight gain. FINDINGS: Pre dialysis SB was higher in group 1: median concentration of 22.7 mmol/L vs. 21.1 mmol/L (P < 0.001). Post dialysis SB levels were higher in group 1: median concentration of 28.0 mmol/L vs. 25.3 mmol/L (P < 0.001). Post dialysis SB in alkalotic range was only detected in group 1 (51.2% of the patients). No significant differences were detected in intradialytic hypotension rate [28.0 vs. 27.4 episodes per 1000 sessions in group 1 and 2, respectively, (P = 0.906)] or in average interdialytic weight gain [2.9% vs. 3.0% in group 1 and 2, respectively, (P = 0.710)]. DISCUSSION: DB of 30 mmol/L appears to be associated with SB levels closer to physiological levels than 34 mmol/L. The bicarbonate dialysate, in the tested concentrations, did not appear to have a significant impact on intradialytic hypotension and interdialytic weight gain in maintenance HDF patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".