Withholding or withdrawing dialysis in the elderly: the perspective of a western region of France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the US and Canada, dialysis discontinuation is one of the more frequent causes of death in elderly patients on haemodialysis, particularly after the age of 75. The aim of this study was to analyse the practices of some French nephrologists, 17 of whom (in six nephrology units) were interviewed for this study. METHODS: A questionnaire was formulated on the basis of a bibliographical search of the topic. A series of questions, initially open and then more targeted, regarding scientific and non-scientific factors influencing the decision to discontinue or refuse haemodialysis in elderly patients, were put to nephrologists. RESULTS: Psychological and physical deterioration emerged as the principal factors governing decisions to refuse or discontinue treatment. The interviewees felt that severe dementia (15 out of 17 nephrologists), irreversible neurological sequelae of a CVA (11 out of 17) and, paradoxically, patient refusal (10 out of 17) were factors to be taken into account in the decision to discontinue haemodialysis. Although the main reasons for refusing dialysis were cognitive disorders, severe dementia and irreversible neurological conditions, none of these factors where actually found to be in and of themselves decisive. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that refusing or discontinuing dialysis are practices accepted by the vast majority of nephrologists in one region of France. Patient refusal is not a basis for denial or discontinuation of dialysis in elderly patients. Our investigation has demonstrated a consensus regarding decisions to refuse or discontinue dialysis.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".