MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival of End‐Stage Renal Disease Diabetic Patients on Hemodialysis

2004· article· en· W1778560657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hakim Maiza, Michelle Thomas, A. Dorcely

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic nephropathyDiabetes mellitusHemodialysisDialysisInternal medicineEnd stage renal diseaseCause of deathNephropathyMortality rateDiseaseGastroenterologySurgeryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To analyze survival and causes of mortality in end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) diabetic patients treated by hemodialysis. Methods: Data of 1203 ESRD hemodialyzed patients between 1975 and 2002 were analyzed, 116 patients were excluded and 1087 patients included in the study. We studied the prevalence of the diabetic nephropathy, the rate of survival and causes of death by comparing diabetic patients with a control group of patients without diabetes. Results: Among the 1087 patients requiring dialysis, 272 (25%) were diabetic and 815 non‐diabetic whose causal nephropathy was nephroangiosclerosis 32%, glomerulonephritis 15%, chronic interstitial nephropathy 14%, and others 14%. The diabetics were older at the beginning of dialysis than non‐diabetic patients: 60.33 ± 11.39 years vs. 52.23 ± 17.20 years, p < 0.001. Average time on dialysis is more important in non‐diabetic than diabetic group [5.90 ± 5.73 years vs. 2.71. ± 2.48 years, p < 0.001]. The rate of death was higher in diabetics than in control group [71.7% vs. 55.8%, respectively, p < 0.003]. The difference in survival between the two groups remains significant for the same age. Death caused by cardiovascular disorders is higher in diabetics (68.8%) than non‐diabetics (31.2%) (p < 0.05). Among death causes, stroke is the most frequent cause in diabetics (18.4% vs. 11.6%) in non‐diabetics, p < 0.05. Death by heart failure and infections is higher in diabetics but the difference is not statistically significant (12.3% in diabetics vs. 9.4% in non‐diabetics for heart failure and 13.8% vs. 11.4% for infections). Death due to neoplasms is higher in non‐diabetics (4.39% vs. 1.02% in diabetics, p < 0.05). Conclusion: In our cohort, mortality in diabetic patients is higher than in non‐diabetic patients. Cardio‐vascular disorders are the most cause of death in diabetics and above all stroke, whereas mortality due to neoplasms is higher in non‐diabetic patients. Diabetes is an important risk factor of mortality in hemodialysis patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207