MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387566459 · doi:10.1111/hdi.13118

Intravascular volumes and the influence on anemia assessed by a carbon monoxide rebreathing method in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis

2023· article· en· W4387566459 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vårin Vinje, Tobias Bomholt, Carsten Lundby, Peter Oturai, Marianne Rix, Kristine Lindhard, Mads Hornum

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRigshospitaletNyreforeningen
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisAnemiaCarbon monoxideIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Fluid overload is a major challenge in hemodialysis patients and might cause hypervolemia. We speculated that hemodialysis patients reaching dry weight could have undetected hypervolemia and low hemoglobin (Hb) concentration (g/dL) due to hemodilution. METHODS: The study included hemodialysis patients (n = 22) and matched healthy controls (n = 22). Blood volume, plasma volume, red blood cell volume, and total Hb mass were determined using a carbon monoxide (CO)-rebreathing method in hemodialysis patients reaching dry weight and controls. Blood volume measurements were also obtained by a dual-isotope labeling technique in a subgroup for validation purposes. FINDINGS: In the hemodialysis group, the median specific blood volume was 89.3 mL/kg (interquartile range [IQR]: 76.7-95.4 mL/kg) and was higher than in the control group (79.9 mL/kg [IQR: 70.4-88.0 mL/kg]; p < 0.037). The median specific plasma volume was 54.7 mL/kg (IQR: 47.1-61.0 mL/kg) and 44.0 mL/kg (IQR: 38.7-49.5 mL/kg) in the hemodialysis and control groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Hb concentration was lower in hemodialysis patients (p < 0.001), whereas no difference in total Hb mass was observed between groups (p = 0.11). A correlation was found between blood volume measured by the CO-rebreathing test and the dual-isotope labeling technique in the control group (r = 0.83, p = 0.015), but not the hemodialysis group (r = 0.25, p = 0.60). DISCUSSION: The hemodialysis group had increased specific blood volume at dry weight due to high plasma volume, suggesting a hypervolemic state. However, correlation was not established against the dual-isotope labeling technique underlining that the precision of the CO-rebreathing test should be further validated. The total Hb mass was similar between hemodialysis patients and controls, unlike Hb concentration, which emphasizes that Hb concentration is an inaccurate marker of anemia among hemodialysis patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207