Factors Affecting the Decision to Initiate Dialysis: A National Survey of United States Nephrologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The percentage of patients initiating dialysis at an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤9 mL/min/1.73 m2 decreased between 2000 and 2018 in the USA. Clinical practice guidelines recommend basing the decision to initiate dialysis primarily on uremic signs and symptoms rather than on a particular level of kidney function. However, what signs and symptoms currently practicing nephrologists consider "uremic," how they weigh eGFR and other factors in the decision to initiate dialysis have not been reported. METHODS: The study was an online survey of 255 US nephrologists, conducted between August and October 2021. RESULTS: Nearly half of respondents (49.8%) had an absolute lower eGFR (8.4 [95% CI: 7.6, 9.2] mL/min/1.73 m2) at which they would initiate dialysis in an asymptomatic patient. The top 5 symptoms that would trigger a recommendation to initiate dialysis were loss of appetite/nausea/vomiting (17%), low eGFR (10%), shortness of breath (10%), declining physical ability/function (9%), and generalized weakness (9%). Poor nutritional status and physical function decline were considered very important in the decision to initiate dialysis by 64% and 55% of respondents, respectively. Nephrologists surveyed significantly shortened the time to dialysis initiation in response to declining physical function in an otherwise asymptomatic (hypothetical) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of nephrologists sometimes based their decision to initiate dialysis on eGFR alone. The eGFR threshold at which they did so was lower than has been examined in randomized controlled trials of dialysis initiation. Initiatives designed to safely delay dialysis through aggressive medical management could focus on modifiable factors that are the most important drivers of the decision to initiate dialysis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".