A single dialysis session of hemodiafiltration with sorbent-regenerated endogenous ultrafiltrate reinfusion (HFR) removes hepcidin more efficiently than bicarbonate hemodialysis: a new approach to containing hepcidin burden in dialysis patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most hemodialysis patients have high Hepcidin-25 levels, which may be involved in the pathogenesis of several uremic complications related to an altered iron biology. The hemodialysis procedure itself can influence Hepcidin-25 levels by removing Hepcidin-25 and maybe stimulating its production due to a pro-inflammatory effect. METHODS: To assess the relationship between dialysis-related inflammation and intradialysis changes in Hepcidin-25, we performed a crossover trial in 28 hemodialysis patients to compare the effects on serum levels of Hepcidin-25 and inflammatory markers activated during dialysis [Tumor Necrosis Factor-α (TNF-α), Interleukin-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), Pentraxin-3] of a single dialysis session using a technique capable of reducing inflammation, HFR (Hemo Filtrate Reinfusion: a hemodiafiltration system combining convection, diffusion and adsorption) or bicarbonate-dialysis using either the same low-flux membrane as in the diffusion stage of HFR (LFBD) or a high-flux membrane (HFBD). RESULTS: HFR achieved a greater reduction in Hepcidin-25 levels than both LFBD [-72% (95% CI: -11 to -133), p = 0.022] and HFBD [-137% (95% CI: -2 to -272), p = 0.047], conceivably due to both a greater removal (because of its convective/adsorptive component) and a lower inflammation-related Hepcidin-25 production. HFR also led to a greater decrease in TNF-α than LFBD [-277% (95% CI: -59 to -494), p = 0.014], while the two methods induced similar changes in Interleukin-6, CRP and Pentraxin-3 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a single bicarbonate-dialysis session can upregulate Hepcidin-25 synthesis and that HFR can fully overcome this effect, enabling a greater Hepcidin-25 removal during dialysis. Adequately-designed studies are needed, however, to establish whether the beneficial effect of HFR emerging from our study could reduce Hepcidin-25 (and TNF-α) burden and improve clinically-relevant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15957905.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".