THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIALYSIS MODALITY, ARTERIOVENOUS FISTULA AND HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF ARTERIAL RESERVOIR-WAVE ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Arterial reservoir-wave analysis (RWA) is a new model of arterial hemodynamics that separates the arterial wave into reservoir pressure (RP) and excess pressure (XSP). Whether RWA parameters are different in hemodialysis (HD), as compared to peritoneal dialysis (PD), and whether any differences are due to the presence of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) remains unknown. The aims of the present study were to examine the differences in RWA 1) in HD versus PD patients and 2) in all dialysis patients (HD+PD) without AVF versus HD patients with AVF. Design and method: In a cross-sectional analysis of prevalent PD (n = 53) and HD (n = 208) patients, RWA was performed using pressure approach applied to the carotid pressure, which was calibrated with mean arterial pressure and used as a surrogate for central pressure. Among HD patients, 115 patients used AVF as vascular access. Results: In HD patients, diastolic blood pressure (BP) was lower (69 ± 14 vs 77 ± 10, mmHg, p < 0.001), while systolic BP was identical, resulting in increased carotid pulse pressure (PP) (58 ± 22 vs 50 ± 22 mm Hg, p = 0.036). Carotid RP and XSP integrals were higher in HD patients (2.11 ± 0.91 vs 1.89 ± 0.94, p = 0.027; 0.48 ± 0.30 vs 0.39 ± 0.27, p = 0.009). While there were no significant differences in BP medication between groups. HD patients were older and had a higher prevalence of clinical comorbidities such as diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. However, analysis of data according to AVF status resulted in homogenous groups in terms of age and comorbidities. In AVF group, dialysis vintage was higher (median 2.3 vs 1.1 years, p < 0.001), diastolic BP lower (68 ± 13 vs 72 ± 13 mm Hg, p = 0.003), PP higher (59 ± 22 vs 54 ± 22, p = 0.061), and RP and XSP integrals were higher (2.2 ± 0.9 vs 2.0 ± 0.9, p = 0.048; 0.5 ± 0.3 vs 0.4 ± 0.3, p = 0.078). After adjustment for dialysis vintage, XSP was significantly higher in AVF group (p = 0.034). Conclusions: In HD patients, RP and XSP integral were higher as compared to PD patients, but these differences were mainly due to the presence of AVF.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".