Adverse outcomes among Aboriginal patients receiving peritoneal dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Aboriginal population in Canada experiences high rates of end-stage renal disease and need for dialytic therapies. Our objective was to examine rates of mortality, technique failure and peritonitis among adult aboriginal patients receiving peritoneal dialysis in the province of Manitoba. We also aimed to explore whether differences in these rates may be accounted for by location of residence (i.e., urban versus rural). METHODS: We included all adult patients residing in the province of Manitoba who received peritoneal dialysis during the period from 1997-2007 (n = 727). We extracted data from a local administrative database and from the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry and the Peritonitis Organism Exit-sites/Tunnel infections (POET) database. We used Cox and logistic regression models to determine the relationship between outcomes and Aboriginal ethnicity. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses to examine the relationship between outcomes and urban (i.e., 50 km or less from the primary dialysis centre in Winnipeg) versus rural (i.e., more than 50 km from the centre) residency among patients who were aboriginal. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one Aboriginal and 566 non-Aboriginal patients were included in the analyses. Adjusted hazard ratios for mortality (HR 1.476, CI 1.073-2.030) and adjusted time to peritonitis (HR 1.785, CI 1.352-2.357) were significantly higher among Aboriginal patients than among non-Aboriginal patients. We found no significant differences in mortality, technique failure or peritonitis between urban- or rural-residing Aboriginal patients. INTERPRETATION: Compared with non-Aboriginal patients receiving peritoneal dialysis, Aboriginal patients receiving peritoneal dialysis had higher mortality and faster time to peritonitis independent of comorbidities and demographic characteristics. This effect was not influenced by place of residence, whether rural or urban.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".