End-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis: A study from a tertiary care center in a developing country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exact number of patients with chronic renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy in developing world is not known. Unlike the developed world, most developing countries lack renal registries. This study was initiated to know demographic and clinical data of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients presenting to maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) at a government funded tertiary care centre in a developing country. A prospective analysis of all new ESRD patients attending to hemodialysis at our centre from 2004 to 2007 had been done. There were 237 new hemodialysis patients during a three-year period. Males were 153 and females were 84, with the mean age 44.92 years. Diabetes mellitus (31.22%) was the most common cause of ESRD. Only 29.95% of patients had education on renal replacement therapy. 65.40% patients had emergency hemodialysis. Internal jugular catheter was the most common form of vascular access at initiation of hemodialysis. Arteriovenous fistula was secured in 29.95% of patients at presentation. Catheter-related infection appeared in 13.55% of patients on catheter. The most common infection in dialysis patients was urinary tract infection (37.14%). Renal transplantation was opted by 9.7% patients and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in 20.25% and 103 (43.45%) were lost to follow up. The rest (8.86%) continued on MHD. There were 42 (17.72%) deaths over a three-year period. The present study provided the information of the practice of hemodialysis, its population characteristics and outcomes from a developing country.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".