Dialysis Access in Europe and North America: Are We on the Same Path?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large differences in dialysis access exist between Europe, Canada, and the United States, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. Vascular access care is characterized by similar issues, but with a different magnitude. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease, independent predictors of central venous catheter use, are growing problems globally, which could lead to more difficulties in native arteriovenous fistula placement and survival. Creation of dedicated dialysis access teams, including a vascular access coordinator, is a fundamental step in improving vascular access care; however, it might not be sufficient. The possibility that factors other than patient characteristics and surgical skills are important in determining outcomes is likely; it might explain apparent contradictions of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) practices (kidney transplant, peritoneal dialysis, patterns of vascular access use in hemodialysis), where some countries excel in one area and score poorly in another. We are on the same path, but we have a long way to go.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it