Changes in Patient and Technique Survival over Time among Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the last 15 years in Canada, there have been less stringent guidelines for peritoneal dialysis (PD) adequacy, availability of novel PD solutions, and lower PD-related peritonitis rates. Effects of these changes on outcomes of incident patients treated with PD during this period are unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Risk of PD technique failure and mortality were compared among three incident cohorts of PD patients who initiated dialysis during the following periods: 1995-2000, 2001-2005, and 2006-2009. A multivariable model was used to evaluate time to PD technique failure using inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights accounting for changing survival and transplantation rates. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2009,13,120 incident adult PD patients were identified from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Compared with the 1995-2000 cohort (n=5183), the risk of PD technique failure was lower among patients between 2001 and 2005 (n=4316) but similar among incident patients between 2006 and 2009 (n=3621). Cause-specific PD technique failure revealed no difference in PD peritonitis-related technique failure over time. PD technique failure due to inadequate PD was initially higher in the 2001-2005 cohort but lower in the 2006-2009 cohort compared with the 1995-2000 cohort. Relative to incident patients between 1995 and 2000, adjusted mortality was lower among incident patients between 2001 and 2005 and 2006 and 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Survival on PD continues to improve with only modest changes in PD technique failure. Peritonitis remains an ongoing and modifiable source of PD technique failure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".