Hemodialysis Vascular Access Modifies the Association between Dialysis Modality and Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several comparisons of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) in incident patients with ESRD demonstrate superior survival in PD-treated patients within the first 1 to 2 years. These survival differences may be due to higher HD-related mortality as a result of high rates of incident central venous catheter (CVC) use or due to an initial survival advantage conferred by PD. We compared the survival of incident PD patients with those who initiated HD with a CVC (HD-CVC) or with a functional arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft (HD-AVF/AVG). We used multivariable piece-wise exponential nonproportional and proportional hazards models to evaluate early (1 year) mortality as well as overall mortality during the period of observation using an intention-to-treat approach. We identified 40,526 incident adult dialysis patients from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register (2001 to 2008). Compared with the 7412 PD patients, 1-year mortality was similar for the 6663 HD-AVF/AVG patients but was 80% higher for the 24,437 HD-CVC patients (adjusted HR, 1.8; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.6 to 1.9). During the entire period of follow-up, HD-AVF/AVG patients had a lower risk for death, and HD-CVC patients had a higher risk for death compared with patients on PD. In conclusion, the use of CVCs in incident HD patients largely accounts for the early survival benefit seen with PD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".