Patient and Technique Survival among a Canadian Multicenter Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As a result of improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes compared with conventional hemodialysis, interest in nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD) has steadily increased in the past decade; however, little is known about the flow of patients through NHD programs or about patient-specific predictors of mortality or technique failure associated with this modality. This study addressed this gap in knowledge. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study included 247 NHD patients of the Canadian Slow Long nightly ExtEnded dialysis Programs (CAN-SLEEP) cohort from 1994 through 2006 inclusive. The association between program- and patient-specific variables and risk for adverse outcomes was determined using uni- and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 14.6% of the cohort experienced death or technique failure. Unadjusted 1- and 5-year adverse event-free survival was 95.2 and 80.1%, respectively. Significant predictors of a composite of mortality and technique failure included advanced age (P < 0.001), diabetes (P < 0.001), central venous catheter use (P = 0.01), and inability to perform NHD independently (P = 0.009) and were adjusted for center effect. Weekly frequency of NHD was not predictive. Age and diabetes remained significant with multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.07 and 2.64, respectively). Unadjusted 1- and 5-year technique survival was 97.9 and 95.2%, respectively. Only age was a significant predictor of technique failure. CONCLUSIONS: NHD is associated with excellent adverse event-free survival. This study underscores the importance of modality-specific predictors in the success of home hemodialysis, as well as favorable baseline characteristics such as younger age and the absence of diabetes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".