Ultrafiltration‐induced decrease in relative blood volume is larger in hemodialysis patients with low specific blood volume: Results from a dialysate bolus administration study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Prescribing the ultrafiltration in hemodialysis patients remains challenging and might benefit from the information on absolute blood volume, estimated by intradialytic dialysate bolus administration. Here, we aimed at determining the relationship between absolute blood volume, normalized for body mass (specific blood volume, Vs), and ultrafiltration‐induced decrease in relative blood volume (∆RBV) as well as clinical parameters including body mass index (BMI). Methods This retrospective analysis comprised 77 patients who had their dialysate bolus‐based absolute blood volume extracted routinely with an automated method. Patient‐specific characteristics and ∆RBV were analyzed as a function of Vs, dichotomizing the data above or below a previously proposed threshold of 65 ml/kg for Vs. Statistical methodology comprised descriptive analyses, two‐group comparisons, and correlation analyses. Findings Median Vs was 68.6 ml/kg (54.9 ml/kg [Quartile 1], 83.4 ml/kg [Quartile 3]). Relative blood volume decreased by 6.3% (2.6%, 12.2%) over the entire hemodialysis session. Vs correlated inversely with BMI (rs = −0.688, p < 0.001). ∆RBV was 9.8% in the group of patients with Vs <65 ml/kg versus 6.0% in the group of patients with Vs ≥65 ml/kg (p = 0.024). The two groups did not differ significantly regarding their specific ultrafiltration volume, normalized for body mass, which amounted to 34.1 ml/kg and 36.0 ml/kg in both groups, respectively (p = 0.630). ∆RBV correlated inversely with Vs (rs = −0.299, p = 0.008). Discussion The present study suggests that patients with higher BMI and lower Vs experience larger blood volume changes, despite similar ultrafiltration requirements. These results underline the clinical plausibility and importance of dialysate bolus‐based absolute blood volume determination in the assessment of target weight, especially in view of a previous study where intradialytic morbid events could be decreased when the target weight was adjusted, based on Vs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".