Practitioners' Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Evidence-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) is a prospective, observational study of the relationships between hemodialysis (HD) patient outcomes and HD treatment practices. The DOPPS began in 1996 in the United States, expanding to France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom in 1998-1999, and then to Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden in 2002. More than 300 dialysis units have participated in the DOPPS since 1996, with mortality data collected from nearly 90,000HD patients and detailed longitudinal data from nearly 30,000 HD patients. Large sample size and the large treatment practice variation observed in the DOPPS--given its international scope of participation--provide strong statistical power to investigate many different HD practices. Furthermore, the detailed patient data collected in the DOPPS allow relationships to account for differences in a large number of patient characteristics. More than 55 papers have been published from the DOPPS; here we provide a summary of selected DOPPS findings regarding nutrition, mineral metabolism, anemia management, vascular access, depression, and use of multivitamins and statins.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.347 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".