Patient‐reported outcomes from the investigational device exemption study of the Tablo hemodialysis system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We recently completed an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study in which 30 patients were enrolled (13 patients previously on home hemodialysis (HHD) and 17 patients new to HHD) and treated with the Tablo Hemodialysis System (Outset Medical, Inc., San Jose, CA) for 8 weeks in-center and 8 weeks in-home with an interim 2-4 week transition period for home training. METHODS: In addition to assessments of urea kinetics, events related to safety, and operational issues (e.g., alarm resolution), we obtained data on several parameters of health-related quality of life, including time to recovery (TTR), the EQ-5D-5L (a well-validated measure of general health status), and the quality of sleep and related symptoms, to further assess the safety of HHD with Tablo. We compared results obtained during the in-center and in-home phases of the trial. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 30 patients (93%) completed all trial periods. Adherence to the prescribed four treatments per week schedule was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. Median TTR was 1.5 hours (10th, 90th percentile range 0.17 to 12, mean TTR 3.68 ± 5.88 hours) during the in-center and 2 hours (10th, 90th percentile range 0 to 6.0, mean TTR 3.04 ± 5.14 hours) during the at-home phase (Wilcoxon signed rank p = 0.57). Median index values on the EQ-5D-5L were similar during the in-center (0.832, 10th, 90th percentile range 0.617 to 1, mean 0.817 ± 0.165) and in-home (0.826, 10th, 90th percentile range 0.603 to 1, mean 0.821 ± 0.163) trial phases (Wilcoxon signed rank p = 0.36). Patients reported feeling alert or well-rested with little difficulty falling or staying asleep or feeling tired and worn out when using Tablo in either environment. CONCLUSION: When using Tablo in-home, patients reported similar TTR, general health status, and sleep quality and related symptoms compared to using Tablo in-center. (294 words).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".