The Impact of Frailty on Technique Failure and Mortality in Patients on Home Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients on home dialysis therapies experience technique failure, which is associated with morbidity and mortality. Reasons for technique failure are complex, and often related to functional decline in the patient or caregiver. Frailty is associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. We investigated the impact of frailty on technique failure and mortality in a prospective cohort of patients on home dialysis therapies. Methods We collected objective (Fried criteria and Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]), and subjective (physician and nurse impression) measures of frailty from 109 prevalent home dialysis patients. Our primary outcome was a composite of technique failure, defined as a permanent unplanned transition (> 30 days in duration) to facility-based hemodialysis or all-cause death. The association between different frailty assessment tools and the primary composite outcome was evaluated using Cox models. Results Fried criteria and physician impression was associated with a greater than 2-fold increase in risk of our composite outcome (HR: 2.10 [95% CI 1.09 – 3.99], 2.15 [95% CI 1.15 – 4.00, respectively] in adjusted analyses. Weakness and weight loss subdomains of the Fried criteria were both associated with an increased risk of our composite outcome in adjusted analyses (HR: 2.16 [95% CI 1.23 – 3.78], 2.69 [95% CI 1.39 – 5.40], respectively). Conclusions Objective and subjective measures of frailty are associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of technique failure or death in patients undergoing home dialysis. Assessing frailty as part of the clinical evaluation for home dialysis therapies may be useful for prognostication and clinical management.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".