Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of frequent hemodialysis (HD) is growing, with the hope of improving outcomes in end-stage renal disease. We narratively review the three randomized trials, 15 comparative cohort studies, and several case series of frequent HD that empirically demonstrate the potential efficacy and adverse effects of these regimens. Taken together, the randomized studies suggest frequent HD may result in left ventricular mass regression. This effect is most pronounced when left ventricular mass is abnormal, but attenuated by significant residual urine output. Both frequent short and long HD consistently improved blood pressure control and reduced antihypertensive use, despite greater weekly interdialytic weight gains. Serum phosphate was lowered. Frequent short daytime HD improved health-related quality of life, while frequent long overnight HD did not. Regarding adverse effects, frequent HD patients underwent significantly more procedures to salvage arteriovenous vascular accesses. An absolute increase in hypotensive episodes was observed with frequent short HD, while frequent long HD accelerated residual renal function loss and increased perceived caregiver burden. The effect of frequent HD on mortality is controversial, due to conflicting results and limitations of published studies. Finally, pregnancy outcomes may be substantially better with frequent long HD. On the basis of these data, we suggest frequent HD is most likely to benefit patients with left ventricular hypertrophy particularly if there is minimal urine output, those unable to attain dry weight on a thrice weekly schedule, and pregnant women. All patients receiving frequent HD should be advised of and monitored for potential risks.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".