Challenges and limitations of maintenance hemodialysis in urban South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintenance hemodialysis is a treatment modality available to few patients reaching end-stage renal disease in India. However, the morbidity and outcome of such treatment remains largely unknown. A retrospective cohort of patients commencing hemodialysis in a secondary care institution in India between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 was studied. Patient demographics, cardiac status, access, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits were assessed and outcomes determined. During the study period, 95 patients (66 males, 29 females) commenced maintenance hemodialysis. The underlying cause of chronic kidney disease was diabetic nephropathy in 66.3% of patients. Cumulative follow-up was 676+9.1 patient months. The mean serum creatinine (+SD) at initiation of dialysis was 8.39+3.28 mg%. Thirty-six percent of patients had a functioning arteriovenous fistula at commencement of dialysis, while the remaining 64% of patients required temporary access. The mean number of comorbidities was 1.9+1.0/patient; diastolic dysfunction was deemed to be present in 20.4% of the patients. The hospitalization rate was 3.9/patient year; the number of visits to the emergency room was 4.9/patient year. Cardiac pathology was the most common cause leading to hospitalization and emergency room visits. Diabetic patients were older and had higher cardiac morbidity (p<0.01). The outcome was as follows: 39% transferred to other units; 27% died; 9% switched to CAPD; 8% lost to follow-up; 1% transplantation: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a median survival of 410 days. Patients commencing hemodialysis in an urban dialysis center in South India are predominantly male and have significant comorbidity including diabetes and cardiac disease. Outcome is generally poor. Hence, a huge opportunity for improvement exists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".