Comparison between DOQI and Canadian Guidelines for Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recently published Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Guidelines for Peritoneal Dialysis Adequacy differ in a number of ways from the United States National Kidney Foundation Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (DOQI) guidelines on the same topic. The three main differences are (1) the CSN targets are the same for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), whereas the DOQI targets are higher for APD; (2) the CSN guidelines have a lower creatinine clearance (CCr) target of 50 L/wk for low and low-average transporters compared to 60 L/wk for high and high-average transporters, but no such distinction is made by DOQI; and (3) the CSN has set lower limit targets as well as preferred targets for Kt/V and CCr. Other differences are that the CSN recommendations do not give Kt/V the same primacy over CCr that DOQI does. Also, the CSN recommendations give greater emphasis to the risks associated with high transport status. This review looks at the reasons for these differences and demonstrates that some are due to information that has become available since the publication of the DOQI guidelines. However, it is emphasized that, when recommendations are predominantly opinion- rather than evidence-based, geographic and economic factors may also account for differences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".