Effect of haemodiafiltration vs conventional haemodialysis on growth and cardiovascular outcomes in children – the HDF, heart and height (3H) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is prevalent in children on dialysis and accounts for almost 30% of all deaths. Randomised trials in adults suggest that haemodiafiltration (HDF) with high convection volumes is associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality compared to high-flux haemodialysis (HD); however paediatric data are scarce. We designed the haemodiafiltration, heart and height (3H) study to test the hypothesis that children on HDF have an improved cardiovascular risk profile, growth and nutritional status and quality of life, compared to those on conventional HD. We performed a non-randomised parallel-arm intervention study within the International Paediatric Haemodialysis Network Registry comparing children on HDF and conventional HD to determine annualised change in cardiovascular end-points and growth. Here we present the 3H study design and baseline characteristics of the study population. 190 children were screened and 177 (106 on HD and 71 on HDF) recruited from 28 centres in 10 countries. There was no difference in age, underlying diagnosis, comorbidities, previous dialysis therapy, dialysis vintage, residual renal function, type of vascular access or blood flow between HD and HDF groups. High flux dialysers were used in 63% of HD patients and ultra-pure water was available in 52%. HDF patients achieved a median convection volume of 13.3 L/m2; this was associated with the blood flow rate only ((p = 0.0004, r = 0.42) and independent of access type (p = 0.38). This is the largest study on dialysis outcomes in children that involves deep phenotyping across a wide range of cardiovascular, anthropometric, nutritional and health-related quality of life measures, to test the hypothesis that HDF leads to improved cardiovascular and growth outcomes compared to conventional HD. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02063776 . The trial was prospectively registered on the 14 Feb 2014.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".