Should we look beyond <i>Kt</i>/<i>V</i> urea in assessing dialysis adequacy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the advent of maintenance dialysis therapy, our interpretation of what adequate dialysis really is has broadened and become more controversial. This is not only due to our changing and aging dialysis population but also to our evolving knowledge base. As nephrologists, we strive to achieve both quality and (often) quantity of life for our patients and we feel reassured when we have a quantifiable marker to show for our efforts. However, we suggest that adequate dialysis reaches far beyond the realms of attaining a particular biochemical result. Dialysis adequacy should encompass a more comprehensive assessment of patient well-being. This metric could comprise quality of life and patient-specified goals, sufficient small solute and middle molecule clearance, optimal blood pressure control, and effective bone-mineral balance, all in the context of minimizing mortality and morbidity, and a livable dialysis regimen for the patient.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".