Is There More to Living Than Not Dying? A Reflection on Survival Studies in Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of the CHOICE study, which compared survival of US hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients, has re-opened the debate about the relative merits of the two dialysis modalities. The principal focus of the research and associated commentary, however, is about which modality is associated with the longest life expectancy. What appears to be missing, however, in the quagmire of propensity scores, comorbidity and confounding factors is that outcomes other than duration of survival must be addressed in discussions of the merits of renal replacement therapies. Home dialysis is very different from in-center hemodialysis, and each therapy has advantages and disadvantages that will have different implications for each patient. Given that overall survival is comparable between home peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis, we need to stop focusing so much on survival time and let the informed patient choose the modality.
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 | 0.366 | 0.497 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".