Is Generative Artificial Intelligence the Next Step Toward a Personalized Hemodialysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) generative models driven by the integration of AI and natural language processing technologies, such as OpenAI's chatbot generative pre-trained transformer large language model (LLM), are receiving much public attention and have the potential to transform personalized medicine. Dialysis patients are highly dependent on technology and their treatment generates a challenging large volume of data that has to be analyzed for knowledge extraction. We argue that, by integrating the data acquired from hemodialysis treatments with the powerful conversational capabilities of LLMs, nephrologists could personalize treatments adapted to patients' lifestyles and preferences. We also argue that this new conversational AI integrated with a personalized patient-computer interface will enhance patients' engagement and self-care by providing them with a more personalized experience. However, generative AI models require continuous and accurate updates of data, and expert supervision and must address potential biases and limitations. Dialysis patients can also benefit from other new emerging technologies such as Digital Twins with which patients' care can also be addressed from a personalized medicine perspective. In this paper, we will revise LLMs potential strengths in terms of their contribution to personalized medicine, and, in particular, their potential impact, and limitations in nephrology. Nephrologists' collaboration with AI academia and companies, to develop algorithms and models that are more transparent, understandable, and trustworthy, will be crucial for the next generation of dialysis patients. The combination of technology, patient-specific data, and AI should contribute to create a more personalized and interactive dialysis process, improving patients' quality of life.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".