The Impact of Blood Flow Rate and Duration of Dialysis Session on Nutritional Status in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood flow rate (BFR) and time of dialysis are important determinants of dialysis adequacy. This study aimed to determine the impact of higher BFR and longer dialysis time on nutritional status in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: Real-world evidence (RWE) studies of 3 HD units in different hospitals that differ in BFR and/or dialysis time. Group I, HD 5 hr and BFR 200-250 mL/min; group II, HD 4 hr and BFR 270-320 mL/min, and group III, HD 4 hr and BFR 200-250 mL/min. All HD units use the same dialysate flow and dialysis frequency. Nutritional status was assessed using a 3-point scale Subjective Global Assessment. RESULTS: A total of 233 chronic HD patients were included, mean of age was 52 ± 12.9 years, 46.5% were male. There are 69.5% on SGA class A, 27.5% on SGA class B, and 3% on SGA class C. The proportion of SGA class A in group II was highest compared to group II and III (93.5% vs 79.0% vs 32.1% (p <0.05). There was no SGA class C in group II, whereas 2.4% in group I and 7.4% in group III. In group II there was lower interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and less use of anti-hypertensive drugs compared to group III (p <0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that higher BFR and longer dialysis time are associated with better nutritional status in chronic HD patients. A higher BFR seems to have a more substantial impact compared to a longer dialysis time. Keywords: blood flow rate, dialysis time, subjective global assessment, nutritional status
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".