Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several technical and nontechnical improvements in peritoneal dialysis (PD) have occurred during recent years. Since few previous studies have examined trends in PD mortality over time, and to determine whether enhancements in PD have translated into improved patient outcomes, mortality rates among the 17,900 patients receiving PD in Canada during the period 1981-1997 were analyzed. Mortality rate ratios (RR) were estimated using Poisson regression, adjusting for age, race, gender, primary renal diagnosis, follow-up time, and type of PD (continuous ambulatory/cyclic versus intermittent). Adjusted mortality rates decreased significantly by calendar period, the reduction being monotonic: RR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.87 for 1986-1989; RR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.78 for 1990-1993; RR = 0.63, 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.67 for 1994-1997, with 1981-1985 serving as the reference period (RR = 1, fixed). The improvement in mortality was fairly consistent across patient subpopulations. When analyzed separately by follow-up time window, the mortality decrease was strongest in the first 12 mo after renal replacement therapy initiation. Supplementary analysis revealed that the trend in mortality rates was not attributable to corresponding trends in transplantation or technique failure rates, or modality switching patterns. Results were quite similar whether based on an "as-treated" or "intent-to-treat" analysis. More extensive data on practice patterns would empower future studies to elucidate the cause/effect relationship between PD practice patterns and patient survival.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".