Home Hemodialysis: Associations with Modality Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine risk factors for home hemodialysis (HH) failure. Methods: We conducted a prospective study from 12/2000 to 9/2002 using data from the 1709 patients who received renal replacement therapy at the Northwest Kidney Centers (NWKC). Prevalent and incident Home Hemodialysis (HH) patients were included in the analysis. Baseline demographics, date of entry and date of exit from HH were ascertained for all patients. Differences among groups were assessed by independent t-test for continuous variables and by chi-squared test for categorical variables. Risk of HH failure was assessed with logistic regression. Results: Of the 116 patients who initiated training in the NWKC HH program (6.8%), 77.7% remained in the HH program, 10.3% received a transplant and 10.3% returned to in-center dialysis. Compared to patients who received a transplant or returned to in-center dialysis, HH patients were more likely to be older (65 vs. 54 yrs, P < .05) and were on dialysis longer (3.8 ± 4.7 vs. 2.3 ± 3.0 yrs, p < 0.05). Ethnicity, gender, primary renal disease and helper status were similar between groups, and were not associated with increased risk of HH failure. Unadjusted 3-year mortality was 31.7% for HH patients. HH patients who died were more likely to be older (p < 0.05) and to have diabetes (P < 0.01) than those who returned to in-center dialysis or who received a transplant. Conclusions: In HH patients, older age but not ethnicity, gender or helper status was associated with treatment failure. Older age and diabetes remain risk factors for mortality in the HH population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".