Association of Modality with Mortality among Canadian Aboriginals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have shown that Aboriginals and Caucasians experience similar outcome on dialysis in Canada. Using the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry, this study examined whether dialysis modality (peritoneal or hemodialysis) impacted mortality in Aboriginal patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study identified 31,576 adult patients (hemodialysis: Aboriginal=1839, Caucasian=21,430; peritoneal dialysis: Aboriginal=554, Caucasian=6769) who initiated dialysis between January of 2000 and December of 2009. Aboriginal status was identified by self-report. Dialysis modality was determined 90 days after dialysis initiation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards and competing risk models were constructed to determine the association between race and mortality by dialysis modality. RESULTS: During the study period, 939 (51.1%) Aboriginals and 12,798 (53.3%) Caucasians initiating hemodialysis died, whereas 166 (30.0%) and 2037 (30.1%), respectively, initiating peritoneal dialysis died. Compared with Caucasians, Aboriginals on hemodialysis had a comparable risk of mortality (adjusted hazards ratio=1.04, 95% confidence interval=0.96-1.11, P=0.37). However, on peritoneal dialysis, Aboriginals experienced a higher risk of mortality (adjusted hazards ratio=1.36, 95% confidence interval=1.13-1.62, P=0.001) and technique failure (adjusted hazards ratio=1.29, 95% confidence interval=1.03-1.60, P=0.03) than Caucasians. The risk of technique failure varied by patient age, with younger Aboriginals (<50 years old) more likely to develop technique failure than Caucasians (adjusted hazards ratio=1.76, 95% confidence interval=1.23-2.52, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Aboriginals on peritoneal dialysis experience higher mortality and technique failure relative to Caucasians. Reasons for this race disparity in peritoneal dialysis outcomes are unclear.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".