Modality options for renal replacement therapy: The integrated care concept revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the End-stage renal disease population continues to grow, innovative strategies that optimize patient outcomes while capitalizing on the relative strengths of the existing modalities must be sought. Renal transplantation remains the preferred form of renal replacement therapy, but given the limited supply of donor organs, dialytic therapies will continue to constitute a large part of the modality mix. Matching patients to the most suitable modalities requires that a number of factors be considered. These include the patient's autonomy, medical and social factors, system-related issues, patient outcomes, and finances. While peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis (HD) have traditionally been viewed as competing modalities, we propose that they, along with home and frequent HD regimens, may be used in a complementary manner, which is based on current evidence, and may provide optimal outcomes while containing treatment costs. In this review, we attempt to synthesize the current literature describing the various issues that affect modality selection, and offer an approach to achieving a balance between these many competing factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".