Factors associated with suboptimal initiation of dialysis despite early nephrologist referral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: STARRT recently demonstrated that many patients experience suboptimal dialysis starts (defined as initiation as an inpatient and/or with a central venous catheter), even when followed by a nephrologist for >12 months (NDT 2011). However, STARRT did not identify the factors associated with suboptimal initiation of dialysis. The objectives of this study were to extend the results of STARRT by ascertaining the factors leading to suboptimal initiation of dialysis in patients who were referred at least 12 months prior to commencement of dialysis. METHODS: At each of the three Toronto centers, charts of consecutive incident RRT patients were identified from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010, with predetermined data extracted. RESULTS: A total of 436 incident RRT patients were studied; 52.4% were followed by a nephrologist for >12 months prior to the initiation of dialysis. Suboptimal starts occurred in 56.4% of these patients. No attempt at arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) prior to initiation was made in 65% of these starts. Factors contributing to suboptimal starts despite early referral included patient-related delays (31.25%), acute-on-chronic kidney disease (31.25%), surgical delays (16.41%), late decision-making (8.59%) and others (12.50%). The percentage of optimal starts with early referral among 14 nephrologists ranged from 33 to 72%. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients started dialysis in a suboptimal manner, despite an extended period of pre-dialysis care. Nephrologists should take responsibility for suboptimal initiation of dialysis despite early referral and test methods that attempt to prevent this.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".