ArticleToxins2025
Comparing Computational Peritoneal Dialysis Models in Pigs and Patients.
Article in Toxins, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breaking barriers in peritoneal fibrosis: extracellular vesicles as promising diagnostic and therapeutic strategy.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- The PD Effluentome-A Multi-Omics Atlas Defining the Composition, Transport Dynamics, and Molecular Origin of Peritoneal Dialysis Effluent.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational models of peritoneal dialysis (PD) are increasingly useful for optimizing treatment in patients with kidney disease requiring dialysis (KDRD). However, although several mathematical models have been developed in the past few decades, a direct comparison of the models' accuracy with respect to predicting in vivo data is needed to further create robust personalized models. Here, we used a dataset obtained in a previous in vivo experimental model of PD in pigs (23 sessions of 4 h 2 L dwells in four pigs) and humans (20 sessions in 20 patients) to compare six computational models of PD: the Graff model (UGM), the three-pore model (TPM), the Garred model (GM), and the Waniewski model (WM), as well as two variations of these (UGM-18, SWM). We conducted this comparison to predict the dialysate concentrations of key uremic toxins and electrolytes (four in humans) throughout a 4 h dwell. The model predictions can provide insight into inter-individual differences in ultrafiltration, which are critical for tailoring PD regimens in KDRD. While TPM offered improved physiological reality, its computational cost suggests a trade-off between model complexity and clinical applicability for real-time or portable kidney support systems. In future applications, such models could provide adaptive PD regimens for tailored care based on patient-specific toxin kinetics and fluid dynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.