Nephrology consultation and mortality in people with stage 4 chronic kidney disease: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend nephrology referral for people with advanced non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, based mostly on survival benefits seen in retrospective studies of dialysis patients, which may not be generalizable to the broader population with chronic kidney disease. We aimed to examine the association between outpatient nephrology consultation and survival in adults with stage 4 chronic kidney disease. METHODS: for > 90 d), who had never had kidney failure and had had no outpatient nephrology encounter in the 2 years preceding study entry. Participants who had never had an outpatient nephrology visit before renal replacement treatment were considered "unexposed." Participants who saw a nephrologist during follow-up were considered "unexposed" before the first outpatient nephrology visit and "exposed" thereafter. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of the 14 382 study participants (median follow-up 2.7 yr), 64% were aged ≥ 80 years, 35% saw a nephrologist and 66% died during follow-up. Nephrology consultation was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.93). The association was strongest in people < 70 years (HR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.92), progressively weaker with increasing age, and absent in people ≥ 90 years (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.25). INTERPRETATION: The survival benefit of nephrology consultation in adults with stage 4 chronic kidney disease may be smaller than expected and appears to attenuate with increasing age. These findings should inform recommendations for nephrology referral considering the advanced age of the patient population meeting current referral criteria.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".