Has the Yearly Increase in the Renal Replacement Therapy Population Ended?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent decline in the number of new patients undergoing dialysis and transplantation in the United States may be linked to a reduction in the incidence of early-start dialysis, defined as the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at an estimated GFR ≥10 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). We examined the most recent data from the U.S. Renal Data System to determine how this trend will affect the future incidence of ESRD in the United States. The percentage of early dialysis starts grew from 19% to 54% of all new starts between 1996 and 2009 but remained stable between 2009 and 2011. Similarly, the incident RRT population increased substantially in all age groups between 1996 and 2005, with the largest increase occurring in patients aged ≥75 years. Early dialysis starts accounted for most of the increase in the incident RRT population in all age groups during this time period, and between 2005 and 2010, the increase slowed dramatically. Although the future incident RRT population will be determined in part by population growth, these results suggest that later dialysis starts and greater use of conservative and palliative care, which may improve quality of life for elderly patients with advanced renal failure, will continue to attenuate the increase observed in previous years.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".