Sex differences in the vascular access of hemodialysis patients: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We describe differences for probability of receiving a fistula attempt, achieving fistula use, remaining catheter-free and the rate of access-related procedures as a function of sex. METHODS: Prospectively collected vascular access data on incident dialysis patients from five Canadian programs using the Dialysis Measurement Analysis and Reporting System to determine differences in fistula-related outcomes between women and men. The probability of receiving a fistula attempt and the probability of fistula use were determined using binary logistic regression. Catheter and fistula procedure rates were described using Poisson regression. We studied time to fistula attempt and time to fistula use, accounting for competing risks. RESULTS: We included 1446 (61%) men and 929 (39%) women. Men had a lower body mass index (P < 0.001) and were more likely to have coronary artery disease (P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (p < 0.001). A total of 688 (48%) men and 403 (43%) women received a fistula attempt. Women were less likely to receive a fistula attempt by 6 months {odds ratio [OR] 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.79]} and to achieve catheter-free use of their fistula by 1 year [OR 0.38 (95% CI 0.27-0.53)]. At an average of 2.30 access procedures per person-year, there is no difference between women and men [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.07)]. Restricting to those with a fistula attempt, women received more procedures [IRR 1.16 (95% CI 1.04-1.30)] attributed to increased catheter procedures [IRR 1.50 (95% CI 1.27-1.78)]. There was no difference in fistula procedures [IRR women versus men 0.96 (95% CI 0.85-1.07)]. CONCLUSION: Compared with men, fewer women undergo a fistula attempt. This disparity increases after adjusting for comorbidities. Women have the same number of fistula procedures as men but are less likely to successfully use their fistula.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".