MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964223287 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001750

Sex-Specific Differences in Hemodialysis Prevalence and Practices and the Male-to-Female Mortality Rate: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS)

2014· article· en· W1964223287 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Manfred Hecking, Brian Bieber, Jean Éthier, Alexandra Kautzky‐Willer, Gere Sunder–Plassmann, Marcus D. Säemann, Brenda W. Gillespie, Ronald L. Pisoni, Bruce Robinson, Friedrich K. Port

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersKyowa Hakko KirinFresenius Medical Care North AmericaSanofiAbbVieKidney Foundation of CanadaAmgen
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisDialysisMortality ratePopulationProportional hazards modelKidney diseaseDemographyEnd stage renal diseaseProspective cohort studyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive analysis of sex-specific differences in the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of individuals with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis might reveal treatment inequalities and targets to improve sex-specific patient care. Here we describe hemodialysis prevalence and patient characteristics by sex, compare the adult male-to-female mortality rate with data from the general population, and evaluate sex interactions with mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We assessed the Human Mortality Database and 206,374 patients receiving hemodialysis from 12 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US) participating in the international, prospective Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) between June 1996 and March 2012. Among 35,964 sampled DOPPS patients with full data collection, we studied patient characteristics (descriptively) and mortality (via Cox regression) by sex. In all age groups, more men than women were on hemodialysis (59% versus 41% overall), with large differences observed between countries. The average estimated glomerular filtration rate at hemodialysis initiation was higher in men than women. The male-to-female mortality rate ratio in the general population varied from 1.5 to 2.6 for age groups <75 y, but in hemodialysis patients was close to one. Compared to women, men were younger (mean = 61.9 ± standard deviation 14.6 versus 63.1 ± 14.5 y), were less frequently obese, were more frequently married and recipients of a kidney transplant, more frequently had coronary artery disease, and were less frequently depressed. Interaction analyses showed that the mortality risk associated with several comorbidities and hemodialysis catheter use was lower for men (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.11) than women (HR = 1.33, interaction p<0.001). This study is limited by its inability to establish causality for the observed sex-specific differences and does not provide information about patients not treated with dialysis or dying prior to a planned start of dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Women's survival advantage was markedly diminished in hemodialysis patients. The finding that fewer women than men were being treated with dialysis for end-stage renal disease merits detailed further study, as the large discrepancies in sex-specific hemodialysis prevalence by country and age group are likely explained by factors beyond biology. Modifiable variables, such as catheter use, showing significant sex interactions suggest interventional targeting. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations287
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207