[Daily/nocturnal hemodialysis: only for the happy few or a real alternative for many?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the negative results of the HEMO study there is renewed interest in alternative, more ''physiological'' dialysis schemes, such as short daily or nocturnal dialysis. Considerable experience has been acquired with short daily hemodialysis, especially in Italy and the Netherlands. Nocturnal daily hemodialysis is mostly performed in Canada, the USA and Australia. Long hemodialysis three times a week is used in Tassin, France. Many observational studies and the prospective controlled London Study have suggested improvements in many intermediate patient outcomes such as dialysis-related symptoms, blood pressure and volume control, phosphate control (only for nocturnal daily dialysis), nutritional status, and quality of life. These studies are, however, too small and underpowered to evince differences in the primary outcomes, mortality and morbidity. An International Registry of Daily Dialysis has been created to obtain further information, and the US National Institutes of Health have sponsored two large-scale trials to compare short and nocturnal daily dialysis with conventional schemes. Organizational problems, higher costs especially initially, and the unavailability of simpler dialysis machines are the main factors that hamper the widespread use of these new schemes. Long nocturnal hemodialysis either in hospital or at home, three times a week or every other night, appears overall the best arrangement and the most attractive solution at present. It provides significant advantages with a minimal increase in cost. It would be interesting if the Italian National Health Service would prioritize funding for these promising schemes of hemodialysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".