DAILY HEMODIALYSIS—SELECTED TOPICS: Reducing Hemodialysis Costs: Conventional and Quotidian Home Hemodialysis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of hemodialysis is a concern as the prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) increases. While home hemodialysis has been described as less expensive than in-center hemodialysis, the proportion of patients performing home hemodialysis has been declining. In Canada, there is increasing interest in daily (or quotidian) forms of home hemodialysis, such as nocturnal hemodialysis and short daily hemodialysis. We reviewed the recent Canadian experience with the costs of these modalities and identified four descriptive costing studies: two whole-program comparisons of home conventional hemodialysis and unmatched in-center hemodialysis patients, and two comparing quotidian home hemodialysis and matched in-center hemodialysis patients. All costs are listed as per patient-year in 2003 U.S. dollars. In the two whole-program analyses, conventional home hemodialysis was less expensive than in-center hemodialysis (36,840 USD versus 100,198 USD[p < 0.001] and 34,466 USD versus 58,959 USD[p < 0.001]). Reductions in categories such as staffing and overhead are likely due to the modality, while reductions in medications and hospital admissions may be due to differences in the patient mix. The savings for quotidian home hemodialysis are significant, but less striking. In the two matched analyses, nocturnal hemodialysis cost less than in-center hemodialysis (48,656 USD versus 59,476 USD [p = 0.006]), and costs decreased by 8,046 USD in those converted to short daily hemodialysis and by 14,341 USD in those converted to nocturnal hemodialysis, while increasing by 2,521 USD in those who remained on in-center hemodialysis. Home conventional hemodialysis is less expensive than in-center hemodialysis. Much of these savings are lost when dialysis frequency increases; however, quotidian home hemodialysis remains less expensive than in-center hemodialysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".