Cross-Sectional Assessment of Achievement of Therapeutic Goals in a Canadian Multidisciplinary Clinic for Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) multidisciplinary clinics has now demonstrated their effectiveness in delaying and even avoiding dialysis for patients with CKD. However, very little has been documented on the management and achievement of targets for a number of parameters in this context. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess our multidisciplinary clinic therapy performance in relation to the targets for hypertension, anemia, and calcium phosphate assessment. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with a cohort including all patients followed up in our multidisciplinary clinic in July 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Comorbidity, laboratory, and clinical data were collected and compared with the recommendations of scientific organizations. RESULTS: . A total of 24.2% of patients with diabetes achieved blood pressure targets of <130/80 mm Hg, while 56.5% of patients without diabetes achieved targets of <140/90 mm Hg. Hemoglobin of patients treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents was 100 to 110 g/L in 36.2% of the patients, below 100 for 39.7% of them, and above 110 for 24.1%, whereas 67.2% were within the acceptable limits of 95 to 115 g/L. In addition, 63.4% of patients had a serum phosphate of <1.5 mmol/L, and 90.9% of patients had total serum calcium <2.5 mmol/L. LIMITATIONS: Our study is a single center study with the majority of our patients being Caucasian. This limits the generalizability of our findings. CONCLUSION: The control rates of various parameters were satisfactory given the difficult clinical context, but could be optimized. We publish these data in the hope that they are helpful to others engaged in quality improvement in their own programs or more generally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".