National Trends in Emergency Room Visits of Dialysis Patients for Adverse Drug Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various medications are cleared by the kidneys, therefore patients with impaired renal function, especially dialysis patients are at risk for adverse drug events (ADEs). There are limited studies on ADEs in maintenance dialysis patients. METHODS: We utilized a nationally representative database, the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, from 2008 to 2013, to compare emergency department (ED) visits for dialysis and propensity matched non-dialysis patients. Log binomial regression was used to calculate relative risk of hospital admission and logistic regression to calculate ORs for in-hospital mortality while adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: While ED visits for ADEs decreased in both groups, they were over 10-fold higher in dialysis patients than non-dialysis patients (65.8-88.5 per 1,000 patients vs. 4.6-5.4 per 1,000 patients respectively, p < 0.001). The top medication category associated with ED visits for ADEs in dialysis patients is agents primarily affecting blood constituents, which has increased. After propensity matching, patient admission was higher in dialysis patients than non-dialysis patients, (88 vs. 76%, p < 0.001). Dialysis was associated with a 3% increase in risk of admission and 3 times the odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 3, 95% CI 2.7-2.3.3). CONCLUSIONS: ED visits for ADEs are substantially higher in dialysis patients than non-dialysis patients. In dialysis patients, ADEs associated with agents primarily affecting blood constituents are on the rise. ED visits for ADEs in dialysis patients have higher inpatient admissions and in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to identify and implement measures aimed at reducing ADEs in dialysis patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".