Is abdominal surgery still a contraindication for peritoneal dialysis?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) is considered an underutilized modality of renal replacement treatment (RRT) in our media if we compare with other countries as Canada [1], with an incidence that has reached a plateau in the last years (Figure 1). In the 2005 Spanish Registry only 14% started RRT with PD, with a reported prevalence in the technique of about 6%. Both the incidence and prevalence of PD patients vary between different regions, depending on their experience and availability. We observe that in some areas as Cantabria o La Rioja the incidence is higher than 20% while in others as Aragón it is almost nonexistent (Figure 2). We must consider that there are some well-defined indications and contraindications for PD that determine its use [2,3]. Many patients are not given the chance to choose the RRT as far as PD is concerned, since some renal units apply this indication too restrictively. A history of previous abdominal surgery is responsible for most of the patients’ refusal. If there is careful selection of the potential PD by the patients, the probabilities of failure decrease considerably.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it