Removal capacity of different high‐flux dialyzers during postdilution online hemodiafiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to compare molecule removal and albumin leakage in postdilution online hemodiafiltration with different high-flux dialyzers. METHODS: We studied seven high-flux dialyzers (Polyflux 210H®, Evodial 2.2®, FxCordiax1000®, Elisio21H®, TS-2.1SL®, XevontaHi20®, VitaPES 210-HF®) in 6 patients. The reduction ratio (RR) of small- and middle-sized molecules was calculated. Dialysate samples were collected to estimate the albumin leakage. FINDINGS: Global differences between dialyzers were observed in the RR of ß2 microglobulin (P =0.003) and prolactin (P =0.013). The mean loss of albumin in the dialysate per session varied between 114 ± 67 mg (with Evodial 2.2) and 2621 ± 1363 mg per session (with XevontaHi20). We found global differences between dialyzers in total albumin loss (P = 0.05). DISCUSSION: We demonstrated that the performance of high-flux dialyzers was different among the types and that not all high-flux dialyzers should be considered equal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".