Long term reduction of cardiovascular risk factors associated with three hour daily dialysis: A prospective, cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Daily hemodialysis (DHD) compared to conventional hemodialysis (CHD) leads to improvements in left ventricular hypertrophy and mineral metabolism at 1‐year follow‐up. However, there is no information from prospective studies on the long terms effects of DHD on these key cardiovascular risk factors. Methods We conducted a 4 year, prospective cohort study of 26 DHD and 51 matched CHD patients on the effect of DHD (six sessions/week × 3 h) versus CHD (three sessions/week × 4 h), 15 DHD, and 26 CHD patients completed 4‐years follow‐up. Measures of left ventricular mass index (LVMI), blood pressures, hemoglobin, and mineral metabolism markers were performed. Results Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower in the DHD group than the CHD group at 4‐year follow‐up, 128 mmHg (95% CI, 111–143) versus 148 mmHg (95% CI, 137–158) (p < 0.05) and 60 mmHg (95% CI, 56–63) versus 71 mmHg (95% CI, 64–76) (p < 0.05). DHD was associated with fewer patients taking any anti‐hypertensive drug therapy than CHD, 50% versus 80% (p < 0.05). DHD was associated with improved attainment of mineral metabolism goals for phosphorus (adjusted HR 3.6, p = 0.002) and calcium × phosphorus product (adjusted HR 3.66, p = 0.001) at 4‐years follow‐up compared to CHD. At 4 years, there was a nonsignificant trend toward lower LVMI in the DHD than in the CHD group: 116 g/m2 (95% CI, 97–136) versus 138 g/m2 (95% CI, 115–172) (p = 0.23). Similarly, improvements in hemoglobin also persisted at 4 years follow‐up. Conclusion DHD is associated with long‐term (4 year) improvements in key cardiovascular risk factors: blood pressure, mineral metabolism, and anemia with trends toward improved LVMI.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".