Provider Perception of Frailty Is Associated with Dialysis Decision Making in Patients with Advanced CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: ). Our objective was to determine the agreement between different frailty measures and physical function and their association with dialysis modality choice (home based versus in-center) and all-cause mortality in patients with advanced CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our study was a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. In 603 patients with advanced CKD, we collected demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory results in addition to objective (Fried frailty criteria) and subjective measures of frailty (physician and nurse impressions) and physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association of frailty with dialysis modality choice and all-cause mortality, respectively. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty varied with assessment tool used (Fried frailty criteria, 34%; Short Physical Performance Battery, 55%; physician impression, 44%; nurse impression, 36%). The agreement between all frailty and physical function measures was poor. We had 227 patients reach kidney failure and decide on a dialysis therapy, and 226 patients died during a mean follow-up of 1455 days. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, the Fried criteria and Short Physical Performance Battery were associated with a two-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.47 to 2.61 and hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval,1.42 to 2.76, respectively). Patients deemed as frail by physician and nurse frailty impressions were three to four times more likely to choose in-center dialysis (odds ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 7.44; odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.76 to 8.51, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the agreement between objective and subjective measures of frailty and physical function was poor. Objective measures of frailty and physical function were associated with mortality, and subjective measures of frailty were associated with dialysis modality choice.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".