MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803119329 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.46

Dialysis‐related practice patterns among hemodialysis patients with cancer

2018· article· en· W2803119329 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hiroki Nishiwaki, Shingo Fukuma, Takeshi Hasegawa, Miho Kimachi, Tadao Akizawa, Shunichi Fukuhara

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKyowa Hakko KirinFresenius Medical Care North AmericaSanofiAbbVieKidney Foundation of CanadaAmgen
KeywordsHemodialysisMedicineCancerDialysisInternal medicineAnemiaIntensive care medicineErythropoietinOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale, aims, and objectives With the achievement of longevity in hemodialysis patients, the risk of comorbid cancer has begun to draw attention. In the present study, we examined dialysis‐related practice patterns and compared those patterns by cancer status. Methods Using data from the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study phase 4, we evaluated 2153 hemodialysis patients. Baseline cancer status for patients was separated into 3 categories: no cancer, cancer with recent treatment, and cancer without recent treatment. We then assessed variations among hemodialysis patients in dialysis‐related practice patterns, including anemia management, management of mineral and bone metabolism disorder, nutritional management, and dialysis treatment, by cancer status. Results We observed both similarities and differences in dialysis‐related practice patterns among hemodialysis patients, by cancer status. Hemoglobin levels were largely similar for all cancer statuses, although erythropoiesis stimulating agents dose tended to be higher in hemodialysis patients with recent cancer treatment (multivariable adjusted mean difference of erythropoiesis stimulating agents dose: 5.4 × 103 IU/L/month) than in those without cancer. Phosphorus and calcium levels were also similar. Nutrition statuses were similar among cancer statuses, as were dialysis therapies. These results suggested that physicians do not modulate their dialysis‐related practices based on whether or not a hemodialysis patient has cancer. Conclusion Among long‐term facility‐based hemodialysis patients with cancer, we detected no statistically significant differences to suggest that cancer status affects hemodialysis practice regarding mineral and bone disorder management, nutritional management, and dialysis treatment. Facility‐based hemodialysis patients with recent cancer treatment, however, receive a higher dose of erythropoietin‐stimulating agent than those without cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207