Similar Outcomes With Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The annual payer costs for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) are lower than with hemodialysis (HD), but in 2007, only 7% of dialysis patients in the United States were treated with PD. Since 1996, there has been no change in the first-year mortality of HD patients, but both short- and long-term outcomes of PD patients have improved. METHODS: Data from the US Renal Data System were examined for secular trends in survival among patients treated with HD and PD on day 90 of end-stage renal disease (HD, 620 020 patients; PD, 64 406 patients) in three 3-year cohorts (1996-1998, 1999-2001, and 2002-2004) for up to 5 years of follow-up using a nonproportional hazards marginal structural model with inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighting. RESULTS: There was a progressive attenuation in the higher risk for death seen in patients treated with PD in earlier cohorts; for the 2002-2004 cohort, there was no significant difference in the risk of death for HD and PD patients through 5 years of follow-up. The median life expectancy of HD and PD patients was 38.4 and 36.6 months, respectively. Analyses in 8 subgroups based on age (<65 and ≥65 years), diabetic status, and baseline comorbidity (none and ≥1) showed greater improvement in survival among patients treated with PD relative to HD at all follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: In the most recent cohorts, patients who began treatment with HD or PD have similar outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".