Can twice weekly hemodialysis expand patient access under resource constraints?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The convention of prescribing hemodialysis on a thrice weekly schedule began empirically when it seemed that this frequency was convenient and likely to treat symptoms for a majority of patients. Later, when urea was identified as the main target and marker of clearance, studies supported the prevailing notion that thrice weekly dialysis provided appropriate clearance of urea. Today, national guidelines on hemodialysis from most countries recommend patients receive at least thrice weekly therapy. However, resource constraints in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have resulted in a substantial proportion of patients using less frequent hemodialysis in these settings. Observational studies of patients on twice weekly dialysis show that twice weekly therapy has noninferior survival rates compared with thrice weekly therapy. In fact, models of urea clearance also show that twice weekly therapy can meet urea clearance "targets" if patients have significant residual function or if they follow a protein-restricted diet, as may be common in LMIC. Greater reliance on twice weekly therapy, at least at the start of hemodialysis, therefore has potential to reduce health care costs and increase access to renal replacement therapy in low-resource settings; however, randomized control trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes of twice versus thrice weekly therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".