MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921385169 · doi:10.1681/asn.2018100990

Effects of Hemodiafiltration versus Conventional Hemodialysis in Children with ESKD: The HDF, Heart and Height Study

2019· article· en· W2921385169 on OpenAlexaff
Rukshana Shroff, Colette Smith, Bruno Ranchin, Aysun Karabay Bayazıt, Constantinos J. Stefanidis, Varvara Askiti, Karolis Ažukaitis, Nur Canpolat, Ayşe Ağbaş, Helen Aitkenhead, Ali Anarat, Bilal Aoun, Daley Aofolaju, Sevcan A. Bakkaloğlu, Devina Bhowruth, Dagmara Borzych–Dużałka, İpek Kaplan Bulut, Rainer Büscher, John Deanfield, Claire Dempster, Ali Düzova, Sandra Habbig, Wesley Hayes, Shivram Hegde, Saoussen Krid, Christoph Licht, Mieczysław Litwin, Mark Mayes, Sevgı Mır, Rose Nemec, Łukasz Obrycki, Fabio Paglialonga, Stefano Picca, Charlotte Samaille, Mohan Shenoy, Manish D. Sinha, Brankica Spasojević, Lynsey Stronach, Enrico Vidal, Karel Vondrák, Alev Yılmaz, Ariane Zaloszyc, Michel Fischbach, Claus Peter Schmitt, Franz Schaefer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersGreat Ormond Street Hospital for ChildrenUniversity College LondonKidney Research UKFresenius Medical Care North America
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisDialysisIntima-media thicknessCohortKidney diseaseCohort studyInternal medicineObservational studyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Statement Although studies suggest that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may reduce cardiovascular mortality in adults, data in children are sparse. In this observational multicenter study, the authors compared HDF and hemodialysis (HD) in children with ESKD, finding that annualized changes in well validated subclinical markers of cardiovascular disease, including carotid intima-media thickness SD scores, were lower in HDF and associated with lower 24-hour ambulatory BP and intradialytic weight gain. Height increased only in the HDF cohort. Compared with the HD cohort, the HDF cohort also had better self-reported outcomes, with fewer headaches, less dizziness or cramps, and shorter recovery time after dialysis sessions. The study provides proof-of-concept data that HDF is a safe treatment that may have benefits over conventional HD in children. A randomized trial is required to confirm these findings. Background Hypertension and cardiovascular disease are common in children undergoing dialysis. Studies suggest that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may reduce cardiovascular mortality in adults, but data for children are scarce. Methods The HDF, Heart and Height study is a nonrandomized observational study comparing outcomes on conventional hemodialysis (HD) versus postdilution online HDF in children. Primary outcome measures were annualized changes in carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) SD score and height SD score. Results We enrolled 190 children from 28 centers; 78 on HD and 55 on HDF completed 1-year follow-up. The groups were comparable for age, dialysis vintage, access type, dialysis frequency, blood flow, and residual renal function. At 1 year, cIMT SD score increased significantly in children on HD but remained static in the HDF cohort. On propensity score analysis, HD was associated with a +0.47 higher annualized cIMT SD score compared with HDF. Height SD score increased in HDF but remained static in HD. Mean arterial pressure SD score increased with HD only. Factors associated with higher cIMT and mean arterial pressure SD-scores were HD group, higher ultrafiltration rate, and higher β 2-microglobulin. The HDF cohort had lower β 2-microglobulin, parathyroid hormone, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at 1 year; fewer headaches, dizziness, or cramps; and shorter postdialysis recovery time. Conclusions HDF is associated with a lack of progression in vascular measures versus progression with HD, as well as an increase in height not seen in the HD cohort. Patient-related outcomes improved among children on HDF correlating with improved BP control and clearances. Confirmation through randomized trials is required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207