Boundaries of frequency and treatment time in conventional hemodialysis: Balancing convenience, economics, and health outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the inception of hemodialysis (HD) for patients with chronic kidney disease, the "perfect" dialysis prescription has remained elusive. Part of this may relate to the heterogeneity among populations, individual patients, and differences in access to health provision. The optimal balance between dialysis frequency and duration to achieve reductions in patient morbidity and mortality continues to be debated. The concept of dialysis adequacy originated from a post hoc mathematical analysis of the National Cooperative Study and has evolved to become a way of calculating dialysis dose and standardizing the dialysis prescription. In contrast, in its originally conceived sense, dialysis adequacy referred to the effective clearance of small solutes. Given the evolution of dialysis practice, we now aim to consider dialysis adequacy in a broader and more holistic manner particularly in view of our aging population and focus toward important patient-centered outcomes. While the traditional thrice weekly, HD regimen remains the default renal replacement modality, alternative strategies including short daily HD, long conventional HD, and long nocturnal HD are being widely implemented. We aim for optimal solute clearance, effective ultrafiltration to achieve normotension (while avoiding intradialytic symptoms) and maintenance of nutritional parameters all within the caveat that quality of life and autonomy are preserved.
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 | 0.000 | 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".