Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are associated with similar outcomes for end-stage renal disease treatment in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There were 35 265 patients receiving renal replacement therapy in Canada at the end of 2007 with 11.0% of patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 48.9% on hemodialysis (HD) and a remaining 40.1% living with a functioning kidney transplant. There are no contemporary studies examining PD survival relative to HD in Canada. The objective was to compare survival outcomes for incident patients starting on PD as compared to HD in Canada. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register, the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was employed to study survival outcomes for patients initiating PD as compared to HD in Canada from 1991 to 2004 with follow-up to 31 December 2007. Comparisons of outcomes were made between three successive calendar periods: 1991-95, 1996-2000 and 2001-04 with the relative risk of death of incident patients calculated using an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis with proportional and non-PH models using a piecewise exponential survival model to compare adjusted mortality rates. RESULTS: In the ITT analysis, overall survival for the entire study period favored PD in the first 18 months and HD after 36 months. However, for the 2001-04 cohort, survival favored PD for the first 2 years and thereafter PD and HD were similar. Among female patients > 65 years with diabetes, PD had a 27% higher mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HD and PD are associated with similar outcomes for end-stage renal disease treatment in Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".