Hemodialysis in a Satellite Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Canada, patients are increasingly receiving hemodialysis (HD) in satellite units, which are closer to their community but further from tertiary care hospitals and their nephrologists. The process of care is different in the satellites with fewer visits from nephrologists and reliance on remote communication. The objective of this study is to compare clinical performance target attainment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients receiving HD in satellite versus in-center units. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: The London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada, has both tertiary care center and satellite HD units. All eligible patients who received dialysis treatment at one of these units as of July 24, 2008, were enrolled into a cross-sectional study (n = 522). Patient attainment of hemoglobin, albumin, calcium-phosphate (Ca-P) product, Kt/V, and vascular access targets were compared. Participants were also administered the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short-Form questionnaire. RESULTS: Satellite patients were more likely to attain clinical performance targets for albumin (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 4.87 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.13 to 11.14]), hemoglobin (OR = 1.59 [95% CI: 1.08 to 2.35]), and Ca-P product (OR = 2.02 [95% CI: 1.14 to 3.60]), as well as for multiple targets (P < 0.05). HRQOL scores were largely similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving HD in a satellite unit were just as likely, or more likely, to demonstrate attainment of clinical performance targets as those dialyzing in-center, while maintaining a similar HRQOL. This supports the increased use of satellite units to provide care closer to the patient's community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".