Differences between physicians in the likelihood of referral and acceptance of elderly patients for dialysis influence of age and comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Incidence of dialysis in elderly patients in the Netherlands is low compared to other countries. This study aims to assess the impact of patients' age and comorbidity on the likelihood of referral and acceptance of patients for dialysis and whether this is affected by physician characteristics. Methods. A vignette study was performed on 209 primary care physicians, 162 non-nephrology specialists and 20 nephrologists working in northern Netherlands. Physicians were offered six vignettes concerning case reports of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and varying comorbidities or circumstances and asked about the likelihood of referral/acceptance of the patient in the given circumstances. Results. The likelihood of referral within groups of physicians varied widely, especially within the group of primary care physicians and non-nephrology specialists, but was not affected by characteristics of the physicians. The likelihood of referral or acceptance of patients for dialysis depended on the patient's age, and type and severity of comorbidity. In general, primary care physicians and non-nephrology specialists were less likely to refer than nephrologists were willing to accept. Differences within and between groups of physicians to accept or refer were larger for 80-year-old patients than for 65-year-old patients. The differences were wider concerning patients with less severe shortness of breath and cognitive impairments and more severe diabetes and social impairments. Hardly any differences were found for patients with cancer. Conclusion. Patients' age and comorbidities affect the likelihood of referral. Differences between groups of physicians suggest that there is insufficient agreement on the extent to which these factors should affect the referral/acceptance of patients for dialysis. These findings underline the need for more research into circumstances under which patients might benefit from dialysis. Guidelines should be developed to improve the referral of elderly and less healthy patients.
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".