Should Patients Remain on Intensive Hemodialysis Rather than Choosing to Receive a Kidney Transplant?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most dialysis patients would choose to receive a kidney transplant if possible. However, some patients who are receiving intensive hemodialysis (HD) have opted against transplantation and have chosen to remain on dialysis. In this paper, we examine studies that help to inform the decision between receiving a kidney transplant and remaining on intensive HD. There are no randomized trials directly comparing transplant to intensive HD. Database and prospective nonrandomized studies support a number of conclusions. First, compared to conventional HD, survival appears to be better with either transplantation or intensive HD. Survival appears to be similar between intensive HD and deceased donor kidney transplantation, but the best survival is reported with live donor transplantation. Secondly, people with a kidney transplant or receiving intensive HD report a higher quality of life than people on conventional HD. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are significant quality of life differences between these treatments. Finally, the costs of intensive HD compare favorably to those of conventional HD. Renal transplantation is more costly in the first year, but after about 2 years should be less costly than any form of HD. Based on these studies eligible intensive HD patients should be encouraged to pursue transplantation, especially live kidney donor transplantation. Individual concerns about the relative risks and benefits of renal transplantation may drive some patients to choose to stay on dialysis. Clinicians should explore the reasons behind such a decision to ensure that the patient is properly informed; however, appropriately reasoned decisions should be respected.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".