A Composite Index of Compliance for Chronic In-Center Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a composite compliance index as the sum of the compliance scores for interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), pre-dialysis serum potassium and phosphorus concentrations (each scored from zero to 3, with 3 indicating the poorest compliance), and skipping hemodialysis sessions (scored from zero to 9, with 9 indicating the poorest compliance). We used this composite score to prospectively evaluate compliance in 25 prevalent hemodialysis patients over a period of 1 year. We then followed these patients for another 3.5 years. The patients studied were divided into two groups: group A (poor compliance) consisted of 9 subjects with composite score ≥ 9 (13.2 ± 3.2); group B (better compliance) consisted of 16 subjects with composite score < 9 (4.7 ± 1.8). Age, duration of hemodialysis, and frequency of diabetes mellitus did not differ between the groups. Group A contained higher fractions of subjects with history of alcoholism (66.7% vs 12.5%, p = 0.010), other substance addiction (44.4% vs 0%, p = 0.010), and severe psychosocial problems (88.9% vs 18.8%, p = 0.002). Mean survival from the beginning of observation, estimated by actuarial life-table survival analysis, was 1.19 years in group A and 2.60 years in group B (p = 0.0265). A composite compliance index incorporating domains indicating adherence to diet, medications, and dialysis schedule identified other behavioral problems in poorly compliant patients. Hemodialysis patients characterized by this composite index as poorly compliant had shortened survival.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".