Cross-Sectional Comparison of Quality of Life and Illness Intrusiveness in Patients Who Are Treated with Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis versus Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nocturnal home hemodialysis provides excellent biochemical and metabolic control of uremia; however, extensive training is necessary and technical barriers exist for intensive home hemodialysis compared with the relative simplicity of peritoneal dialysis. It was hypothesized that nocturnal home hemodialysis is associated with improved quality of life but higher illness intrusiveness compared with peritoneal dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: All home dialysis patients at the University Health Network were approached to complete the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form, Beck Depression Inventory, and Illness Intrusiveness Survey during February to June 2006. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of all eligible patients completed the survey. Of the three domains derived from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form, there was no difference in the kidney disease component summary, physical component summary, and the mental component summary between the two groups. There was a trend toward better sexual function in the nocturnal home hemodialysis group; however, nocturnal home hemodialysis patients experienced less social support than the peritoneal dialysis group. There was no difference between the nocturnal home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients with respect to the Beck Depression Index. Total illness intrusiveness score was similar between the nocturnal home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that nocturnal home hemodialysis is not perceived as a more intrusive treatment and demonstrates that patients who are on peritoneal dialysis have similar perceived symptomatic control of their kidney disease.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".