International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis Practice Recommendations: The view of the person who is doing or who has done peritoneal dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2019 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) Practice Recommendations were prepared by a committee invited by the ISPD to develop new practice recommendations for prescribing high-quality, goal-directed peritoneal dialysis (PD). Further input was sought at the stage of the first draft of the proposed recommendations by circulating drafts of the recommendations and articles to an international selection of people who were either actively doing PD or who were previously treated with PD, as well as caregivers, to ask for their feedback. A diverse group of 22 people from 8 countries across 5 continents provided their feedback covering the main recommendations as well as the accompanying articles. Much of the feedback has been acted upon at the revision stages, however, the responses are published here in summary form to underscore the commitment to hearing the voice of those doing PD or caring for them. A key change that arose from the feedback has been the shift of language from "patient-centred" to "person-centered," reflecting the desire of these recommendations to address the patient as a person with needs and preferences beyond just the medical perspective, along with the need for the person doing PD to be central to the process of shared decision-making. Notwithstanding the challenges of an international, multi-lingual population, with people doing PD in highly diverse geographic and economic environments, the next iteration of ISPD guidelines should consider the role of people doing PD and their carers in evidence-based coproduced guidelines, from the inception of the guidelines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".