Survival and Hospitalization for Intensive Home Hemodialysis Compared with Kidney Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian patients receiving intensive home hemodialysis (IHHD; ≥16 hours per week) have survival comparable to that of deceased donor kidney transplant recipients in the United States, but a comparison with Canadian kidney transplant recipients has not been conducted. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive, adult IHHD patients and kidney transplant recipients between 2000 and 2011 at a large Canadian tertiary care center. The primary outcome was time-to-treatment failure or death for IHHD patients compared with expanded criteria, standard criteria, and living donor recipients, and secondary outcomes included hospitalization rate. Treatment failure was defined as a permanent switch to an alternative dialysis modality for IHHD patients, and graft failure for transplant recipients. The cohort comprised 173 IHHD patients and 202 expanded criteria, 642 standard criteria, and 673 living donor recipients. There were 285 events in the primary analysis. Transplant recipients had a reduced risk of treatment failure/death compared with IHHD patients, with relative hazards of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.31 to 0.67) for living donor recipients, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59) for standard criteria donor recipients, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.67) for expanded criteria donor recipients. IHHD patients had a lower hospitalization rate in the first year of treatment compared with standard criteria donor recipients and in the first 3 months of treatment compared with living donor and expanded criteria donor recipients. In this cohort, kidney transplantation was associated with superior treatment and patient survival, but higher early rates of hospitalization, compared with IHHD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".