Association of Dialysis Modality with Risk for Infection-Related Hospitalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritonitis is a well known complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), whereas in hemodialysis (HD), bacteremia can be life threatening. Whether patients undergoing PD have higher risk than HD patients for infection-related hospitalizations (IRH) remains unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort of patients undergoing long-term dialysis between January 2001 and December 2007 was assembled. Propensity scores were calculated using multivariable (demographic characteristics, smoking, body mass index, comorbid conditions, and laboratory data) logistic regression to estimate probability of receiving PD versus HD. A comparison of IRH risk by dialysis modality was estimated using a counting-process survival model. RESULTS: A total of 910 pairs of patients were matched by propensity scores. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.1-3.5 years), 341 patients were hospitalized once for an infection, 123 twice, and 106 at least three times. PD was associated with an increased risk for IRH compared with HD (propensity-matched hazard ratio [HR], 1.52). PD was associated with a reduced risk for septicemia (HR, 0.31) and pneumonia (HR, 0.58) but also an increased risk for dialysis-related infectious hospitalizations (HR, 3.44), defined as all cases of peritonitis and vascular access-related bacteremia, but not all septicemia cases. CONCLUSIONS: PD patients are at higher risk for IRH than are HD patients. This risk is mostly explained by dialysis-related infections. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether the severity of those hospitalizations is similar and whether this increased risk for IRH is associated with worse outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".