MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981710897 · doi:10.1681/asn.2019090895

Think Twice before Postponing Chronic Dialysis in Children

2019· letter· en· W2981710897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evgenia Preka, Marjolein Bonthuis, Jérôme Harambat, Kitty J. Jager

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisNephrologyKidney diseaseRandomized controlled trialPopulationRenal replacement therapyIntensive care medicineAsymptomaticClinical PracticeInternal medicineClinical trialPediatricsFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article by Winnicki et al.1 and the related editorial by Larkins and Craig2 raises important questions about indiscriminately postponing dialysis in children in every clinical setting. Multiple studies have shown that the global variation in eGFR at dialysis initiation in children is large due to multiple reasons: lack of evidence base, complexity of ESKD in the pediatric population, and temporal trends following clinical guidelines recommendations. However, the current median eGFR at dialysis initiation is 7.8, 8.1, and 8.2 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the United States, Canada, and Europe, respectively (all below the cutoff limit of 10 ml/min per 1.73 m2).3 The only published randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying the effect of initiating dialysis early (10–15 ml/min per 1.73 m2) versus late (5–7 ml/min per 1.73 m2)4 in adults revealed no differences in all-cause mortality, economics, or quality of life. Although the results of this RCT could not be entirely generalizable to children, we could conclude that, among patients with asymptomatic ESKD, initiation of dialysis can be safely postponed. Recently, the European Society of Paediatric Nephrology/European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ESPN/ERA-EDTA) Registry5 examined the same question in 2963 patients from 21 European countries using a eGFR cutoff value of 8 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (representing more accurately the current practice worldwide and following clinical practice guidelines as per Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative 2015, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2018, and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2019).3 There was no difference in terms of morbidity, mortality, growth, and access to transplantation, except a higher risk of developing hypertension among late starters (64% versus 51% among early starters). However, it is important to mention that the International Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis Network found in 1001 children and adolescents on peritoneal dialysis that late dialysis start was associated with underweight (11% and 5% in children starting peritoneal dialysis at an eGFR of <6 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and an eGFR of 9–12 ml/min per 1.73 m2, respectively), which may favor early start in that setting. Last but not least, lack of clinical information (renal residual function, clinical indications for starting dialysis, uremic symptoms), and statistical inborn errors of registry and observational studies (lead time, indication and survivor biases) might lead to over- or underestimation of the outcomes. Until a RCT is conducted in children with the current data, and knowing the complexity of ESKD in children, we should only advise that eGFR is a poor indicator of deciding whether to start dialysis if this is used as the sole/main criterion. Even if recent data have demonstrated an association between early dialysis start (eGFR>10 ml/min per 1.73 m2) and mortality, clinicians might need to “think twice” about delaying dialysis if quality of life, growth, or uremic/hypertensive symptoms indicate the opposite. Disclosures None.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0100.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→