Equivalent Fall Risk in Elderly Patients on Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: ♦ BACKGROUND: Accidental falls are common in the hemodialysis (HD) population. The high fall rate has been attributed to a combination of aging, kidney disease-related morbidity, and HD treatment-related hazards. We hypothesized that patients maintained on peritoneal dialysis (PD) would have fewer falls than those on chronic HD. The objective of this study was to compare the falls risk between cohorts of elderly patients maintained on HD and PD, using prospective data from a large academic dialysis facility. ♦ METHODS: Patients aged 65 years or over on chronic in-hospital HD and PD at the University Health Network were recruited. Patients were followed biweekly, and falls occurring within the first year recorded. Fall risk between the 2 groups was compared using both crude and adjusted Poisson lognormal random effects modeling. ♦ RESULTS: Out of 258 potential patients, 236 were recruited, assessed at baseline, and followed biweekly for falls. Of 74 PD patients, 40 (54%) experienced 86 falls while 76 out of 162 (47%) HD patients experienced a total of 305 falls (crude fall rate 1.25 vs 1.60 respectively, odds ratio [OR] falls in PD patients 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 - 0.92, p = 0.04). After adjustment for differences in comorbidity, number of medications, and other demographic differences, PD patients were no less likely to experience accidental falls than HD patients (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.88 - 3.04, p = 0.1). ♦ CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that accidental falls are equally common in the PD population and the HD population. These data argue against post-HD hypotension as the sole contributor to the high fall risk in the dialysis population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".