Dialysis Modality and Mortality in Heart Failure: A Retrospective Study of Incident Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prior studies reported lower mortality with hemodialysis (HD) compared to peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with heart failure (HF). We examined mortality rate by initial dialysis modality in incident dialysis patients with a history of HF using contemporary data and methods that ensure comparable HD and PD groups. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Adults (age 50-80) with a history of HF who initiated maintenance dialysis between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2016 were included. We excluded patients typically ineligible for PD as an initial modality (dialysis start in hospital, dementia, long-term care facility residency). We determined the cause-specific hazard ratio (transplant as a competing event) between initial dialysis modality (HD vs. PD) and all-cause mortality using an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: We included 2,199 patients with HF who initiated maintenance dialysis (77% HD and 23% PD). There were 1,152 (67.8%) and 340 (68.1%) mortality events over a median follow-up of 2.4 and 2.5 years in the HD and PD groups, respectively. Patients initiating HD versus PD was not associated with the mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.9-1.1). Similar results were seen in analyses censoring at modality switches and treating modality as time-varying. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in mortality by initial dialysis modality. Our data support the current practice of selecting dialysis modality based on patient preference for patients with pre-existing HF.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".