An International Perspective on Peritoneal Dialysis among Indigenous Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review utilization rates, outcomes, and barriers to peritoneal dialysis (PD) in indigenous peoples from an international perspective. METHODS: Articles were obtained from Medline and EMBASE and from author name and reference searches. Data from census bureaus and renal registries in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States were used. Studies were included if they contained information on utilization of, outcomes of, or barriers to PD in indigenous populations. RESULTS: In 2007, of all prevalent PD patients, 7.0%, 5.1%, 28.2%, and 1.3% in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States respectively were of indigenous background. The proportions of prevalent renal replacement therapy patients on PD reflected the national rates-New Zealand being the highest at 0.29, and the United States the lowest at 0.05. Mortality was generally higher in indigenous than in non-indigenous PD patients. Variations in mortality study results likely reflect differences in the definitions of explanatory variables such as rurality and in the availability of local specialty care services. Technique failure and peritonitis rates were higher among indigenous than among non-indigenous patients. CONCLUSIONS: The less favorable outcomes in indigenous PD patients across countries may, in part, be a manifestation of reduced access to resources. Understanding the effects of socio-economic, geographic, cultural, and language issues, and of health literacy discrepancies on various aspects of PD education, training, and outcomes can potentially identify ways in which outcomes might be improved among indigenous patients on PD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".