A Dialysis Patient's Choice and a Nephrologist's Obligation: The Need to Understand and Value the Patient's Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-centered care is critical to the successful management of chronic diseases, such as chronic kidney disease. While a course of treatment may prolong life it may come with a reduced quality of life (QOL). For many patients, the decision to prolong life at the expense of lower QOL is not an obvious choice. Dialysis patients make treatment decisions daily, some of which can be life-altering. Therefore, the need for optimal decision-making may be more pressing in dialysis patients than in many other chronic disease states. Guiding patients through these life-altering decisions requires a fuller understanding of how they view their disease, their treatments, and the consequence of accepting or rejecting the treatments offered to them. We propose a conceptual framework to help us understand decision-making in chronic diseases such as end stage renal disease. We also highlight a need to critically examine how patients make decisions on survival versus QOL and the relationship of their decisions to their illness and treatment beliefs. Understanding the role of patients' belief systems can guide education interventions for medical professionals involved in their care in order to help them develop patient-centered, personalized treatment plans.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".