Effect of incident nocturnal home hemodialysis versus incident continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis on employment rate, clinical, and laboratory outcomes: A 1‐year retrospective observation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: While studies demonstrated favorable outcomes of nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD), direct comparison on employment rate, clinical and laboratory outcomes between the NHHD and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) had not been previously performed. Methods: A 1‐year retrospective observation study was performed in 20 incidents alternate night NHHD and 81 incident CAPD patients of Chinese ethnicity, who were sex, diabetic status, and Charlson comorbidity index matched, but not age due to our center's age limit for NHHD enrollment. The primary outcome was the difference in employment rate at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included differences in clinical parameters (weight, blood pressure, number of antihypertensive medication, dosage of phosphate binders, and erythropoietin stimulating agent) and laboratory parameters (residual renal function, mineral metabolic markers, hemoglobin). Findings: NHHD subjects were 5 years younger than CAPD patients, and they had higher employment rate (80% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.01) at 1 year, with age‐adjusted odds ratio for employment was 6.10 (95% confidence interval 1.77–20.99, P = 0.04). They consumed less aluminum‐based phosphate binder (0 vs. 1800 mg, P < 0.01), but showed no significant disparities in other clinical parameters. Residual renal function in both groups declined comparably, nonetheless NHHD group had lower serum phosphate (1.37 vs. 1.71 mmol/L, P = 0.01) and calcium phosphate product (3.13 vs. 4.12 mmol2/L2, P < 0.01), with similar hemoglobin levels. Discussion: NHHD appeared to offer higher employment rate, lower dosage of aluminum‐based phosphate binder and mineral metabolic markers at 1 year compared with CAPD in Hong Kong.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".