An international feasibility study of home haemodialysis in older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home haemodialysis (HHD) is undergoing a significant revival. There is a global demographic shift with a rising mean age of dialysis patients. We postulated that intensive HHD may also benefit the older dialysis population. However, there is a lack of literature on the feasibility of HHD in older patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The purpose of this study was to ascertain the feasibility of delivering HHD to older patients. METHODS: We conducted a multi-centre multinational retrospective cohort study of HHD patients ≥65 years of age at the time of HHD initiation; 79 patients were included. Baseline demographic data included age at start of dialysis, race and sex. Dialysis characteristics including total weekly treatment hours, need for assistance, training time, dialysis access, modality and dialysis vintage were captured, as well as cause of ESRD and medical co-morbidities. The primary outcome was time to technique failure or death. Rates of hospitalization, cardiovascular events, non-infectious vascular access events and infections were collected. RESULTS: Median age at start was 68 (interquartile range 66-71) years. An arteriovenous fistula was the predominant access, and most patients were receiving <16 h of total weekly dialysis treatment. Family or nurse assistance for dialysis was required in 54% of patients. There were 17 (22%) deaths and 20 (26%) technique failures. The cumulative time at risk was 188 years. Event-free survival at 1, 2 and 5 years was 85, 77 and 24%, respectively, and technique survival was 92, 83 and 56%, respectively. Advancing age (categorized into quartiles) was an unadjusted risk factor for death and technique failure. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms feasibility of HHD in patients 65 years or older at the start of this modality and should foster further research on the potential benefits of (intensive) HHD in older ESRD patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".