Peritoneal dialysis: past, present, and future.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately, 10% to 15% of patients with end-stage renal disease are on peritoneal dialysis (PD) worldwide, with a dramatic difference in the use of PD among various countries. Recent data show a survival benefit of PD over hemodialysis which is maintained up to the 3rd year. The quality of life studied by various models is as good as, if not better than, that in patients on hemodialysis, for at least the first 2 years. In most countries that locally manufacture PD solutions, PD is significantly cheaper than hemodialysis. Several studies have found a better immediate graft function, lower rate of delayed graft function, and lower use of immunosuppressive medication after kidney transplantation in patients previously on PD compared to those on hemodialysis. There is a significantly lower rate of hepatitis C and hepatitis B infections in patients on PD compared to those on hemodialysis. Longer maintenance of residual renal function in PD compared to hemodialysis adds to the lower morbidity and the survival benefit of PD mentioned above. Many developments in the prevention of the causes of technique failure, including measures to prevent serious peritonitis episodes and new biocompatible PD solutions, together with the possible advantages of some types of catheters and implantation techniques, encourage us to believe that we can offer successful long-term PD in the near future. Overall, the new insight into the pathogenesis of peritoneal membrane changes, the response of the industry to this knowledge by producing new biocompatible PD solutions, the decrease in the peritonitis rate and the introduction of assisted PD at home encourages us to believe that the future of PD is indeed bright.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".