Incremental peritoneal dialysis: New ideas about an old approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coping with the transition from end‐stage kidney disease to dialysis can be challenging for patients and their care partners. Introducing incident dialysis patients to incremental forms of dialysis is associated with better quality of life and reduced cost. Incremental hemodialysis ( HD ) has generated significant interest over the last decade with treatments that focus on clinical criteria rather than prespecified Kt/V urea targets. Incremental peritoneal dialysis ( PD ) has traditionally focused on the sum of residual renal and peritoneal clearances to achieve a specific Kt/V urea value. Gradual increases in the PD dose were prescribed as the residual kidney function declined. Adopting a new approach to incremental PD similar to what has been done for incremental HD would obviate the need for Kt/V urea and focus exclusively on clinical criteria. New incremental PD may be considered less disruptive to incident dialysis patients, and may be more likely to be accepted as treatment. It will also reduce our obsession with small solute kinetics and enhance encounters with patients by focusing instead on the holisitc clinical assessment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".