Peritoneal Volume Influence on POCUS Volume Assessment in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate variations in fluid overload using point of care ultrasound (POCUS). We assessed patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) with full and drained peritoneum and their correlation with clinical parameters. Methods: POCUS examination and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurements were conducted in patients undergoing PD with a full peritoneum. Subsequently, after drainage, a new POCUS and bioimpedance analysis (BIA) were performed. Results: Seventeen patients were included in the study: 70.6% male, mean age 66+/-9.5 years. Of these, 65% had fluid overload >1 L and 23% had overhydration (OH) adjusted for extracellular water (ECW) exceeding 15%, as assessed by BIA. B-lines with full peritoneum had a median of 1 (0-2.5), and with drained peritoneum 0 (0-0). This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.063). In the correlation analysis of variables, IAP and PD fluid volume per m2 of body surface did not correlate with the diameters or collapsibility of the inferior vena cava (IVC) with full or drained peritoneum. The degree of OH in liters correlated with IVC collapsibility with drained peritoneum (Spearman ρ=-0.43; p=0.08), as did the OH adjusted for ECW (Spearman ρ=-0.61; p=0.02). These correlations disappeared with full peritoneum (p>0.05). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in ultrasound volume overload parameters in patients undergoing PD with full vs. drained peritoneum. However, there are indications of lower POCUS sensitivity to fluid overload with a full peritoneum.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".