Long-term outcomes of end-stage renal disease patients admitted to the ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) have poor survival and high rates of readmission; however, little evidence exists on long-term outcomes. We set out to investigate the long-term (6 and 12 months) survival of ESRD patients admitted to the ICU and whether differential survival could be explained by dialysis modality and vascular access. METHODS: We compared the admission characteristics, outcomes and readmission rates of 619 ESRD [95 peritoneal dialysis (PD), 334 hemodialysis with a catheter (HD CVC), 190 hemodialysis with an AV fistula (HD AVF)] patients admitted to 11 ICU's in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used as appropriate to determine differences in baseline characteristics. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression was used to assess outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: The 6- and 12-month crude survival was 62 and 52%, respectively. In a univariate model, modality and vascular access were associated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) of death [PD HR 1.60 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.13, HD CVC HR 1.55 95% CI 1.25-1.93] compared to patients on HD with an AVF. In three different multivariate adjusted models, this association persisted with HRs for death of 1.63-1.75 for PD and 1.50-1.58 for HD CVC. CONCLUSIONS: Overall long-term survival of ESRD patients after admission to the ICU is poor. Being on PD or being dialyzed with a catheter was independently associated with an increased mortality.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".