Establishing a core outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis: A Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology–Peritoneal Dialysis consensus workshop report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life participation is an outcome of critical importance to patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, there is no widely accepted or validated tool for measuring life participation in patients receiving PD. METHODS: Online consensus workshop to identify the essential characteristics of life participation as a core outcome, with the goal of establishing a patient-reported outcome measure for use in all trials in patients receiving PD. Thematic analysis of transcripts was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-six participants, including 17 patients and caregivers, from 15 countries convened via online videoconference. Four themes were identified: reconfiguring expectations of daily living (accepting day-to-day fluctuation as the norm, shifting thresholds of acceptability, preserving gains in flexibility and freedom), ensuring broad applicability and interpretability (establishing cross-cultural relevance, incorporating valued activities, distinguishing unmodifiable barriers to life participation), capturing transitions between modalities and how they affect life participation (responsive to trajectory towards stable, reflecting changes with dialysis transitions) and maximising feasibility of implementation (reducing completion burden, administrable with ease and flexibility). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a validated, generalisable outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving PD. Feasibility, including length of time to complete and flexible mode of delivery, are important to allow implementation in all trials that include patients receiving 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 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 | 0.211 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".