Assisted peritoneal dialysis performed by caregivers and its association with patient outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although caregivers allow peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients with disabilities the opportunity to perform PD, it is crucial to clarify the safety and effectiveness of assisted PD performed by caregivers compared to self-PD. METHODS: PD patients from 22 PD centres in Thailand were prospectively followed in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study during 2016-2017. Patients receiving assisted PD performed by caregivers were matched 1:1 with self-PD patients using propensity scores calculated by logistic regression. The associations between assisted PD and risk of mortality, peritonitis and permanent transfer to haemodialysis (HD) were assessed by multivariable competing risk regression. RESULTS: Of 778 eligible patients, 447 (57%) required assisted PD performed by caregivers. Most of the caregivers were family members (98%), while the rest were non-family paid caregivers (2%). Patient factors associated with assisted PD were older age, female gender, lower educational level, cardiovascular comorbidities, diabetes, automated PD modality, poorer functional status and lower blood chemistries (albumin, creatinine, sodium, potassium and phosphate). After 1:1 matching, the baseline characteristics were adequately matched, and 269 patients in each group were analysed. Compared with self-PD, assisted PD was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted sub-hazard ratio: 2.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-3.74). There were no differences in the occurrences of peritonitis and permanent HD transfer between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Assisted PD was required by more than half of Thai PD patients and was independently associated with a higher mortality risk. This may reflect causal effect or confounding by indication.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".