Nephrologists Should Voluntarily Divulge Survival Data to Potential Dialysis Patients: A Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For many dialysis patients, survival is no different than with certain cancers. Yet, it appears that most nephrologists do not give detailed information about survival prior to obtaining informed consent for chronic dialysis. There are no published data on whether patients wish to be so informed. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients would want voluntary disclosure by their physician of their survival should they need dialysis, and if so, why? METHOD: A questionnaire was completed by 100 general nephrology patients during their first visit to a nephrologist. RESULTS: The vast majority of patients (97%) would want to be given life-expectancy information, and for the physician to do so without having to be prompted. Furthermore, the majority of patients would want as much information as possible, both good and bad. CONCLUSIONS: Virtually all patients want, and therefore should receive from their physician, prognostic information about dialysis to facilitate informed decision-making. This is in accordance with current practice guidelines.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".