The Feasibility of Caregiver-Assisted Home Nocturnal Hemodialysis
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
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) has several benefits. However, patients that require caregiver assistance for dialysis may be at risk for poor outcomes. In an effort to determine if HNHD can be extended to assisted patients, an analysis of their outcomes is important. METHODS: We examined a single-center cohort of patients that started and completed HNHD training between 01 January 2003 and 31 December 2010 (last follow-up 01 July 2011). Patients were classified as 'dependent' if they required caregiver assistance for dialysis. The primary outcome was time to first hospitalization, technique failure, or death for dependent versus independent patients. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rate and hospital days. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included in this study. Dependent patients (n = 47) were older (51 vs. 42 years), more likely to have diabetic end-stage renal disease (26 vs. 8%) and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (4 vs. 3) compared to independent patients (n = 105). In an adjusted analysis there was no significant difference in the time to composite outcome for dependent versus independent patients (relative hazard 1.25; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.76-2.04). Adjusted incidence rate ratios for hospitalizations (1.58; 95% CI 0.95-2.65) and hospital days (1.84; 95% CI 0.78-4.34) were not significantly different for dependent versus independent patients. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that outcomes of caregiver-assisted versus independent HNHD patients are likely driven by differences in case mix. The need for caregiver assistance alone should not be a deterrent to HNHD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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