Predictors of Loss of Residual Renal Function among New Dialysis Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residual renal function (RRF) in end-stage renal disease is clinically important as it contributes to adequacy of dialysis, quality of life, and mortality. This study was conducted to determine the predictors of RRF loss in a national random sample of patients initiating hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. The study controlled for baseline variables and included major predictors. The end point was loss of RRF, defined as a urine volume <200 ml/24 h at approximately 1 yr of follow-up. The adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and P values associated with each of the demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment parameters were estimated using an "adjusted" univariate analysis. Significant variables (P < 0.05) were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. Predictors of RRF loss were female gender (AOR = 1.45; P < 0.001), non-white race (AOR = 1.57; P = <0.001), prior history of diabetes (AOR = 1.82; P = 0.006), prior history of congestive heart failure (AOR = 1.32; P = 0.03), and time to follow-up (AOR = 1.06 per month; P = 0.03). Patients treated with peritoneal dialysis had a 65% lower risk of RRF loss than those on hemodialysis (AOR = 0.35; P < 0.001). Higher serum calcium (AOR = 0.81 per mg/dl; P = 0.05), use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (AOR = 0.68; P < 0.001). and use of a calcium channel blocker (AOR = 0.77; P = 0.01) were independently associated with decreased risk of RRF loss. The observations of demographic groups at risk and potentially modifiable factors and therapies have generated testable hypotheses regarding therapies that may preserve RRF among end-stage renal disease 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it