Bioimpedance analysis is not superior to clinical assessment in determining hydration status: A prospective randomized‐controlled trial in a Western dialysis population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fluid management is an important goal of dialysis treatment. The accurate assessment of fluid status is still a challenge for clinical nephrologists. Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) has been proposed as an objective tool to assess hydration. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled study to compare hydration status measured by clinical assessment compared to BIA using a body composition monitor (BCM). The primary outcome was defined as the decline of cardiac biomarker N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline to the end of the study. FINDINGS: About 281 chronic hemodialysis patients were assessed for eligibility, and 132 patients provided written informed consent to participate (65 BIA group, 67 clinical group). Predialytic NT-proBNP, and decline of NT-proBNP were similar in both groups. The amount of overhydration (2.18 ± 2.11 L vs. 1.29 ± 1.97 L; p 0.016) and the number of patients with severe overhydration (46.0% vs. 30.6%, p = 0.04) were significantly higher in the BIA group at the end of the study. Fluid accumulation in the interdialytic period was significantly lower in the clinical group (p = 0.013). Adverse events occurred more often in the BIA group (p = 0.032). The cumulative number of hypovolemic events was significantly higher in the BIA group (p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: Fluid management by BIA does not lead to a better cardiac outcome (appraised by surrogate markers) than fluid management by careful clinical assessment. Adapting the dry weight according to BIA results increases the risk of adverse events, especially hypovolemic episodes. Careful clinical fluid assessment is important for optimal care of chronic hemodialysis patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".