MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410519347 · doi:10.1111/hdi.13253

Characteristics and Organization of In‐Center Nocturnal Hemodialysis in the Netherlands: Practical Guidance for Centers Willing to Initiate Nocturnal Hemodialysis

2025· article· en· W4410519347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jos N. M. Barendregt, Tizza P. Zomer, Yolande M. Vermeeren, Paul A Rootjes, Brigit C. van Jaarsveld

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGelre Ziekenhuizen
KeywordsNocturnalHemodialysisMedicineHome hemodialysisObservational studyDialysisMedical prescriptionEmergency medicineCenter (category theory)Intensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal in-center hemodialysis (HD) offers a higher dialysis dose and longer ultrafiltration time than regular HD, which potentially benefits at least a selection of patients. Currently, only a minority of HD patients have access to in-center nocturnal HD. Many practical and logistical problems must be overcome by an HD center before the treatment can become operational. METHODS: For assessing the detailed organization of in-center nocturnal HD in the Netherlands, an observational cross-sectional study was performed using Nefrodata (Dutch Registry of dialysis patients) and structured questionnaires for center managers and nephrologists. Descriptive analyses were performed, followed by an analysis of best practices. FINDINGS: Out of 55 Dutch dialysis centers, 27 offer in-center nocturnal HD, treating 255 out of 5200 patients treated with intermittent HD. Of these 27 centers, 4 stopped providing in-center nocturnal HD, mostly due to organizational problems. Our survey showed that some aspects of treatment were similar in the various centers, such as duration of sessions (7-8 h), patient education at the pre-dialysis outpatient department, treatment prescription, and blood pressure monitoring. In contrast, patient selection varied between centers, for example, regarding functional vascular access: non-tunneled catheters were not allowed during in-center nocturnal HD in some centers. Also, hemodynamic instability observed during daytime treatment was, by some centers, considered a problem for starting in-center nocturnal HD. Furthermore, large differences regarding the organization of nursing staff exist. Importantly, all nephrologists agree that in-center nocturnal HD is a useful part of the treatment repertoire offered in their centers. DISCUSSION: Practical guidance to organize a successful and safe in-center nocturnal HD program is provided. Patients' safety should be guaranteed without affecting the patient's night's sleep. In-center nocturnal HD offers patients the most optimal metabolic control, excellent intradialytic hemodynamic stability, and volume control with more free time during the day.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→