Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As interest for home dialysis is growing, knowledge of comparative clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) would help to better inform shared decision making with patients and caregivers during modality discussion. This study aimed to assess differences in risk of mortality and technique failure in an incident home dialysis cohort and, specifically, to assess change in this association through eras. METHODS: All adults patients initiating PD or HHD, in Canada (excluding Quebec), within 365 days after kidney replacement therapy (KRT) initiation between 2000 and 2013 were included (administrative censoring 31 December 2014). Mortality and treatment failure (transfer to another modality for >90 days or death) were assessed in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, with prespecified stratification based on the year of KRT initiation. RESULTS: The study included 959 HHD and 15,469 PD patients. Compared with incident PD, incident HHD was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.78), and treatment failure (aHR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.45-0.60). These lower risks of mortality with HHD were more pronounced for older cohorts (2000-2005: aHR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.31-0.70; 2006-2010: aHR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54-0.89) and not significantly different in the most recent era (2011-2013: aHR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.51-1.47). CONCLUSION: In Canadian incident KRT patients, HHD was associated with appreciably lower risks of mortality and treatment failure compared to PD, although this association appeared to be attenuated in the most contemporary era.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".