Home dialysis in older adults: challenges and solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a rising demand for dialysis in the older population given the increased numbers of older adults living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) progressing to kidney failure. Home dialysis, i.e. peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD), has been available for decades, but more recently there has been a rapid increase in home dialysis utilization as patients and clinicians consider its practical and clinical advantages. For older adults, incident home dialysis utilization more than doubled and prevalent home dialysis growth nearly doubled over the past decade. Whilst its advantages and recent rise in popularity are evident, there are numerous barriers and challenges that are important to consider prior to initiating older adults on home dialysis. Some nephrology healthcare professionals do not view home dialysis as an option for older adults. Successful delivery of home dialysis for older adults may be made even more difficult by physical or cognitive limitations, concerns around dialysis adequacy, and treatment-related complications, as well as challenges relating to caregiver burnout and patient frailty that are unique to home dialysis and older adults. Ultimately, it would be important for clinicians, patients and their caregivers to define what constitutes a 'successful therapy' to ensure treatment goals are aligned towards each individual's priorities of care, considering the complex challenges that surround an older adult receiving home dialysis. In this review, we evaluate some of the key challenges surrounding the delivery of home dialysis to older adults and propose potential solutions based on updated evidence to overcome these challenges.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".