Liver Blood Flow in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess liver blood flow and cardiac output in chronic hemodialysis patients (n = 7) before and after a hemodialysis session, and to compare it to normal volunteers (n = 11). We used the hepatic clearance of sorbitol to calculate liver blood flow and echocardiograms to evaluate cardiac output. The latter was higher in hemodialysis patients (predialysis 4.7 +/- 1.8 liters/min, postdialysis 4.5 +/- 0.9 liters/min) compared to normal subjects (3.8 +/- 0.9 liters/min, p = 0.09 and p = 0.05). Hepatic blood clearance of sorbitol was similar in hemodialysis patients before and after dialysis (1,610 +/- 266 and 1,541 +/- 415 ml/min) as well as in normal volunteers (1,565 +/- 313 ml/min). The hepatic extraction ratio of sorbitol is slightly decreased in hemodialysis patients (n = 3) (0.87 +/- 0.03) compared to values reported in the literature for healthy subjects. We conclude that liver blood flow is not significantly altered in 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".