Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a simple, "low-tech" form of renal replacement therapy that is less expensive than conventional in-center hemodialysis in many parts of the world. Despite the advantages associated with this modality, it has not been as embraced as it deserves to be in many countries, including the United States. This brief review will focus on recent interesting and germane publications related to therapy with PD, centering on three broad themes: (i) "biocompatible" PD solutions; (ii) encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis; and (iii) comparisons of survival between PD and conventional hemodialysis. Recent publications concerning biocompatible solutions are hampered by varying trial designs, confounding by indication, and solutions with different compositions. Perhaps the most robust result, a reduction in peritonitis, has not been a consistent finding across studies. The results are generally disappointing with respect to clinically relevant endpoints such as membrane function and patient survival. The rarity of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis, still a vexing and worrying complication, hampers any systematic examination of pathogenesis and treatment. The establishment of registries may help to better understand this condition. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials of PD versus hemodialysis, survival analyses are fraught with enormous methodological and statistical pitfalls. Nevertheless, many investigators remain focused on small differences in survival between the two modalities; even more inappropriately, some clinicians use these imperfect data to guide their modality recommendations. Recent outcome studies suggest that the survival of patients on PD compared with conventional hemodialysis is astonishingly similar, and differences between early and late survival are more explainable by the circumstances around initiation than by the modality itself.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".