Interprovincial differences in the achievement of K/DOQI targets of mineral metabolism in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormalities in mineral metabolism in chronic kidney disease are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) clinical practice guidelines were established in 2003 to address issues in the management of mineral and bone metabolism. The goal of this study was to compare (i) mineral metabolism control among Canadian haemodialysis (HD) patients with K/DOQI-defined targets and Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study II (DOPPS II) data and (ii) the effect of different treatment strategies. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 2215 HD patients was conducted. Phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) and calcium-phosphate product (CaXP) were analysed. In addition, management was compared between provinces with more or less restricted access to the phosphate binder sevelamer. RESULTS: K/DOQI targets for P, Ca, iPTH and CaXP K/DOQI targets were met by 59.7%, 58.6%, 29.7% and 83.3%, respectively. A greater proportion of patients were within target compared with those in DOPPS II (2002-2004). Targets were more likely to be reached by patients residing in provinces with formularies allowing less restricted access to sevelamer: P: 61.8% vs 55.7% (P = 0.01); CaXP: 85.5% vs 79.1% (P = 0.0006). As expected, patients in provinces with more restrictive formularies were more often receiving doses of elemental calcium > 1.5 g/day than those with more open listings (62.1% vs 14.0%, P < 0.0001) and were less likely to receive sevelamer (14.1% vs 42.4%, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Mineral metabolism parameters were more frequently within the target range amongst (i) patients in the current study compared with those in the DOPPS II era and (ii) patients in provinces with less restricted access to sevelamer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".