The availability of support and peritoneal dialysis survival: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Providing support is important to maintain a patient on peritoneal dialysis (PD), though its impact on outcomes has not been investigated thoroughly. We examined the association between having support and risk of a transfer to hemodialysis. Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study, we used data captured in the Dialysis Measurement Analysis and Reporting system about patients who started PD in Alberta, Canada, between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2018. Support was defined as the availability of a support person in the home who was able, willing and available to provide support for PD in the patient’s residence. The outcome of interest was a transfer to hemodialysis for at least 90 days. We estimated the cumulative incidence of a transfer over time accounting for competing risks and hazard ratios to summarise the association between support and a transfer. We split follow-up time as hazard ratios varied over time. Results: Six hundred and eighty-three incident PD patients, median age 58 years ( IQR : 47–68) and 35% female, were followed for a median of 15 months. The cumulative incidence of a transfer to hemodialysis at 24 months was 26%. Having support was associated with a reduced risk of a transfer between 3 and 12 months after the start of dialysis (HR 3-12mo : 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25–0.78), but not earlier (hazard ratio (HR) <3mo : 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55–1.69) or later (HR >12mo : 1.19; 95% CI: 0.65–2.17). Conclusions: A transfer to hemodialysis is common. Having a support person at home is associated with a short-term protective effect after the initiation of PD.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".