MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987587614 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12795

Safety and efficacy of the Tablo hemodialysis system for in‐center and home hemodialysis

2019· article· en· W2987587614 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Troy J. Plumb, Luis Álvarez, Dennis L. Ross, Joseph Lee, Jeffrey Mulhern, Jeffrey L. Bell, Graham E. Abra, Sarah Prichard, Glenn M. Chertow, Michael A. Aragon

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisHome hemodialysisClinical endpointAdverse effectCohortClinical trialSingle CenterEmergency medicinePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Home hemodialysis remains underutilized despite observational data indicating more favorable outcomes with home compared with in‐center hemodialysis. The Tablo Hemodialysis system is designed to be easy to learn and use and to facilitate adoption of home hemodialysis. The objective of the current investigational device exemption (IDE) study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Tablo managed in‐center by health care professionals and in‐home by patients and/or caregivers. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, open‐label, crossover trial comparing in‐center and in‐home hemodialysis using Tablo. There were 4 treatment periods during which hemodialysis was prescribed 4 times per week: 1‐week Run‐In , 8‐week In‐Center , 4‐week Transition , and 8‐week In‐Home . The primary efficacy endpoint was weekly standard Kt/V urea ≥ 2.1. The secondary efficacy endpoint was delivery of ultrafiltration (UF) within 10% of prescribed UF. We collected safety and usability data. Findings: Thirty participants enrolled and 28 completed all trial periods. Adherence to the protocol requirement of 4 treatments per week was 96% in‐center and 99% in‐home. The average prescribed and delivered session lengths were 3.4 hours for both the In‐Center and the In‐Home periods. The primary efficacy endpoint for the intention‐to‐treat cohort was achieved in 199/200 (99.5%) of measurements during the In‐Center period and 168/171 (98.3%) In‐Home. The average weekly standard Kt/V urea was 2.8 in both periods. The secondary efficacy UF endpoint was achieved in the ITT cohort in 94% in both in‐center and in‐home. Two prespecified adverse events (AEs) occurred during the In‐Center period and 6 in the In‐Home period. None of the AEs were deemed by investigators as related to Tablo. The median resolution time of alarms was 8 seconds in‐center and 5 seconds in‐home. Conclusion: Primary and secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were achieved during both In‐Center and In‐Home trial periods. This study confirms that Tablo is safe and effective for home hemodialysis use.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207