MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106605764 · doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2449

Comparison of Mortality Between Private For-Profit and Private Not-For-Profit Hemodialysis Centers

2002· review· en· W2106605764 on OpenAlexaff
P.J. Devereaux, Holger J. Schünemann, Nikila C. Ravindran, Mohit Bhandari, Amit Garg, P. Choi, Brydon J. B. Grant, Ted Haines, Christina Lacchetti, Bruce Weaver, John N. Lavis, David R.S. Haslam, Terrence Sullivan, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFor profitProfit (economics)Not for profitFinancePublic relationsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Private for-profit and private not-for-profit dialysis facilities provide the majority of hemodialysis care in the United States. There has been extensive debate about whether the profit status of these facilities influences patient mortality. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a difference in adjusted mortality rates exists between hemodialysis patients receiving care in private for-profit vs private not-for-profit dialysis centers. DATA SOURCES: We searched 11 bibliographic databases, reviewed our own files, and contacted experts in June 2001-January 2002. In June 2002, we also searched PubMed using the "related articles" feature, SciSearch, and the reference lists of all studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. STUDY SELECTION: We included published and unpublished observational studies that directly compared the mortality rates of hemodialysis patients in private for-profit and private not-for-profit dialysis centers and provided adjusted mortality rates. We masked the study results prior to determining study eligibility, and teams of 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of all studies. Eight observational studies that included more than 500 000 patient-years of data fulfilled our eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on study characteristics, sampling method, data sources, and factors controlled for in the analyses. Reviewers resolved disagreements by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: The studies reported data from January 1, 1973, through December 31, 1997, and included a median of 1342 facilities per study. Six of the 8 studies showed a statistically significant increase in adjusted mortality in for-profit facilities, 1 showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality in for-profit facilities, and 1 showed a nonsignificant trend toward decreased mortality in for-profit facilities. The pooled estimate, using a random-effects model, demonstrated that private for-profit dialysis centers were associated with an increased risk of death (relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.13; P<.001). This relative risk suggests that there are annually 2500 (with a plausible range of 1200-4000) excessive premature deaths in US for-profit dialysis centers. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis care in private not-for-profit centers is associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with care in private for-profit centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations188
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207