Frequent In‐Center Hemodialysis: Who Can Benefit From a Frequent Dialysis Approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent (a.k.a daily hemodialysis) has continued to spark interest in the nephrology community as a way to possibly improve outcomes for the end-stage renal disease population. This is a patient population with a very high disease burden and mortality rate. The concept of dialysis adequacy in its current form has consolidated mainly around three times weekly dialysis, which has become the worldwide accepted standard. The current drive to encourage more home hemodialysis (which is a frequent dialysis regimen) has made the lessons from daily in-center hemodialysis more relevant. Frequent hemodialysis has been shown in both observational and randomized controlled studies to have some cardiovascular, mineral metabolism, and quality of life benefits. Some of what is learned from this body of literature is applicable today with increasing emphasis on home hemodialysis. This review will focus on the benefits and potential harms of daily hemodialysis to assist the practitioner in shared decision making with patients about the expected benefits and drawbacks of frequent in-center dialysis and what the expected goals should be for a frequent dialysis regimen.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".