Daily Dialysis and Flexible Schedules: How to Assess Kt/V and EKR<sub>c</sub>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing interest in daily hemodialysis (DHD), logistic and economic factors limit its dissemination. Not the least of these factors is the lack of uniform criteria for measuring efficiency. From November 1998 to November 2000, 19 patients were on DHD in our unit. The dialysis prescription was bicarbonate buffer; 6 sessions per week; 2 – 3 hours; blood flow 250 – 350 mL/min; individual K, HCO3, and Na levels; membrane 1.6 – 2 m2 (polysulfone, polycarbonate). The prescription represented the minimum dialysis requirement; patients were free to add up to 30 minutes per session, further increase or any decreases needed confirmation by the caregivers. The aim of the study was to assess Kt/Vurea variability in this clinical setting, and to identify the minimum number of dialysis sessions required to obtain a reliable estimate of weekly Kt/Vurea [relative error (RE) < 10%]. We studied 169 dialysis sessions in 13 clinically stable patients on DHD for ≥ 3 months, with ≥ 3 Kt/Vurea measurements within 2 weeks (median: 10; range: 3 – 32 sessions), tested in the same laboratory. To assess variability, we employed the simplest formula (the Lowrie Kt/Vurea), the widely used Daugirdas II formula, and the derived single-pool equivalent renal clearance (EKRc), according to Casino. The variability of Kt/Vurea per session was high (Lowrie: RE = 2.5% – 22.1%; Daugirdas II and EKRc: RE = 3.6% – 24%). Averaging several dialysis sessions leads to a more reliable estimate of weekly efficiency (6 sessions: RE = 0; 3 sessions, Lowrie formula: Kt/Vurea RE = 1.1% – 9.7%; Daugirdas II and EKRc: RE = 1.6% – 10.6%). In patients with wide time variations, variability may be lower if weekly efficiency is determined on the basis of “average hourly Kt/Vurea,” which is calculated by dividing Kt/Vurea by the number of hours in the studied sessions, and then multiplying by the hours of dialysis performed in the whole week (Lowrie formula, Kt/Vurea: RE = 4.8% – 16.6% for 1 session, 2.1% – 7.3% for 3 sessions). Once again, the RE decreases sharply when data from 3 sessions are considered. Therefore, for flexible DHD, we suggest averaging the data from ≥ 3 sessions for weekly Kt/Vurea assessment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".