Trends in CAPD Technique Failure: Canada, 1981–1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although important enhancements to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) have occurred since its inception, few studies have explicitly evaluated trends over time in CAPD technique failure rates. To assist in quantifying the net benefit of improvements to CAPD for patient outcomes, we examined trends in technique failure rates among Canadian CAPD patients. PATIENTS: Patients initiating renal replacement therapy on CAPD (n = 7110) between 1981 and 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Technique failure (i.e., switch to hemodialysis). RESULTS: Total follow-up was 12,831 patient-years (pt-yr). There were 1976 technique failures, for a crude CAPD failure rate of 154.0/1000 pt-yr. Technique failure rate ratios (RR) estimated using Poisson regression and adjusted for age, gender, race, province, primary renal diagnosis, and follow-up time, were significantly reduced for the 1990-93 [RR = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.68, 0.83)], 1994-95 [RR = 0.83, CI (0.75, 0.93)], and 1996-97 [RR = 0.78, CI (0.70, 0.87)] calendar periods relative to 1981-89 (RR = 1, reference). Among cause-specific technique failure rates, the greatest improvement was observed for peritonitis-attributable technique failure, with RR = 0.46, CI (0.41, 0.50) for 1990-97 relative to 1981-89. However, rates of technique failure due to inadequate dialysis were significantly elevated for the 1990-97 period [RR = 1.68, CI (1.44, 1.96)]. CONCLUSIONS: The collection of more detailed data on practice patterns would enable future studies to elucidate the cause-and-effect relationship between CAPD descriptors and technique failure, and hence assist in clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".