Dynamics of vascular refilling in extended nocturnal hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Long dialysis treatments are generally assumed to mitigate the ultrafiltration (UF) induced volume perturbation and to improve vascular refilling because of reduced UF rates and sufficient time for volume re‐equilibration. The time course of vascular refilling was therefore examined during extended nocturnal dialysis. Methods For each hour of dialysis, vascular refilling volume was calculated from the absolute blood volume changes and UF volume removed. Absolute blood volume was estimated by indicator dilution at the beginning of dialysis and then tracked with a relative blood volume monitor. The refilling fraction was defined as the ratio of refilling volume to UF volume. Findings Ten stable chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients were studied during extended (7 h) nocturnal treatment sessions. Specific UF rate was 4.8 ± 1.8 ml/kg/h. In the 1 h, refilling volume amounted to only 23% of UF volume. Thereafter, refilling fraction steeply increased and reached maximum values in the 2, 3 and 4 h at about mean 90% (91.5%, 88.7%, and 91.1% respectively). From the 5 h on, refilling volume decreased (5 h 81.3%, 6 h 72.5%, 7 h 70.0% of UF volume). Cumulative refilling reached 73.6% of UF volume after 4 h of treatment time. This did not change during the further course of HD. Cumulative refilling volume showed a strong correlation (r = 0.94; p < 0.001) with UF volume. The ratio of blood volume to extracellular volume (Rbex) was 0.306 ± 0.029 before and slightly but significantly increased to 0.326 ± 0.030 after UF. Discussion In spite of low‐UF rates and extended treatment times, overall refilling fraction reached only 74% and was not different from the refilling fraction observed in regular HD. This value seems to represent a point where UF‐induced volume perturbation is adequately compensated by physiologic control mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".