Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemodialysis (HD) is often used as an example of the most expensive chronic medical intervention that society will pay for on an ongoing basis. More intensive forms of HD have been associated with improved clinical outcomes, but concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of increased costs. We review recent Canadian studies examining the costs and cost utility of intensive HD, with a focus on comparisons with conventional in-center hemodialysis (IHD). The costs of starting a new home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) program in British Columbia was estimated to be about $510,000 for the first year of the program, including the training of the first 53 patients, or about $18,830 per patient. A study by Lee et al. found the costs of home HD to be substantially less than IHD ($93,976 vs. $54,936, p < 0.001). A study by Kroeker et al. found that the lowest costs were seen with home short daily HD ($82,522), compared with $89,154 for IHD, and $91,218 for HNHD. Two studies by McFarlane et al. found that total costs were lower for those receiving HNHD (IHD $87,172 vs. HNHD $71,313), and that HNHD was associated with a superior cost-utility ratio (CAN$ 2011, HNHD $84,430/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] vs. IHD $148,722/QALY, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: -$54,281, p < 0.05). While consistent findings of lower staffing and overhead costs for home HD, and higher consumable costs for frequent dialysis are probably reliable, findings of lower medication and hospital admission costs seen with intensive HD will need confirmation in randomized studies. Modifications to conventional dialysis funding are needed to accommodate for the additional costs of supplies and technology needed to support intensive modalities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".