MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965806688 · doi:10.1177/2054358119861943

The Influence of Age on the Likelihood of Catheter-Free Fistula Use in Hemodialysis Patients

2019· article· en· W2965806688 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Farah Ladak, Pietro Ravani, Matthew J. Oliver, Fareed Kamar, Alix Clarke, Swapnil Hiremath, Jennifer M. MacRae, Peter G. Blake, Louise Moist, Amit X. Garg, Ngan N. Lam, Chance S. Dumaine, Robert R. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisCatheterNephrologyFistulaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHemodialysis CatheterSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend arteriovenous fistulas as the preferred form of vascular access for hemodialysis. However, some studies have suggested that older age is associated with poorer fistula outcomes. Objective: We assessed the impact of age on the outcomes of fistula creation and access-related procedures. Design: This was a prospective cohort study using data collected as part of the Dialysis Measurement Analysis and Reporting (DMAR) system. Setting: Participating Canadian dialysis programs, including Southern Alberta Renal Program, Manitoba Renal Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, Ontario), London Health Sciences Centre (London, Ontario), and The Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Ontario). Patients: Incident hemodialysis patients aged 18 years and older who started dialysis between January 1, 2004, and May 31, 2012. Measurements: The primary outcome was the proportion of all first fistula attempts that resulted in catheter-free fistula use, defined as independent use of a fistula for hemodialysis (ie, no catheter in place). Secondary outcomes included the time to catheter-free fistula use among patients with a fistula creation attempt, total number of days of catheter-free fistula use, and the proportion of a patient’s hemodialysis career spent with an independently functioning fistula (ie, catheter-free fistula use). Methods: We compared patient characteristics by age group, using t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square or Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. Logistic and fractional logistic regression were used to estimate the odds of achieving catheter-free fistula use by age group and the proportion of dialysis time spent catheter-free, respectively. Results: A total of 1091 patients met our inclusion criteria (567 age ≥ 65; 524 age < 65). Only 57% of first fistula attempts resulted in catheter-free fistula use irrespective of age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] ≥65vs<65 : 1.01; P = .93). The median time from hemodialysis start to catheter-free use of the first fistula did not differ by age when grouped into fistulas attempted pre- and post-dialysis initiation. The adjusted rates of access-related procedures were comparable (incidence rate ratio [IRR] ≥65vs<65: 0.95; P = .32). The median percentage of follow-up time spent catheter-free was similar and low in patients who attempted fistulas (<65 years: 19% vs ≥65 years: 21%; P = .85). Limitations: The relatively short follow-up time may have underestimated the benefits of fistula creation and the observational study design precludes inferences about causality. Conclusions: In our study, older patients who underwent a fistula attempt were just as likely as younger patients to achieve catheter-free fistula use, within a similar time frame, and while requiring a similar number of access procedures. However, the minority of dialysis time was spent catheter-free.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207