The Use of Incremental Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Contemporary Peritoneal Dialysis Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of an incremental peritoneal dialysis (PD) strategy in a large contemporary patient population has not been described. OBJECTIVE: We report the use of this strategy in clinical practice, the prescriptions required, and the clearances achieved in a large center which has routinely used this approach for more than 10 years. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: A single large Canadian academic center. PATIENTS: This study collected data on 124 prevalent PD patients at a single Canadian academic center. METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of patients who achieve the clearance target on a low clearance or incremental PD prescription; the actual PD prescriptions and consequent total, peritoneal, and renal urea clearances [Kt/V] achieved; and patient and technique survival and peritonitis rate in comparison with national and international reports. RESULTS: Of the 124 prevalent PD patients in this PD unit, 106 (86%) were achieving the Kt/V target, and of these, 54 (44% of all patients) were doing so using incremental PD prescriptions. Fifty of these incremental PD patients were using automated PD (APD) with either no day dwell (68%) or less than 7 days a week treatment (12%) or both (20%). Patient survival in our PD unit was not different from that reported in Canada as a whole. Peritonitis rates were better than internationally recommended standards. LIMITATIONS: This is an observational study with no randomized control group. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental PD is feasible in a contemporary PD population treated mainly with APD. Almost half of the patients were able to achieve clearance targets while receiving less onerous and less costly low clearance prescriptions. We suggest that incremental PD should be widely used as a cost-effective strategy in PD.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".