A different PET test: The relationship between pet ownership and peritonitis risk in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pet ownership is common around the world, with pet ownership increasing in many countries. Current guidelines are not supportive of pet ownership for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. We examined the association between ownership of cats and dogs and the incidence of peritonitis among PD patients participating in the prospective, observational Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. A total of 3655 PD patients from eight different countries was included, with a median follow-up of 14 months and a total exposure time of 55,475 patient-months. There were 1347 peritonitis episodes with an overall peritonitis rate of 0.29 episodes per patient year. There was no significant increased risk of peritonitis with any type of pet ownership, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.09 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.96-1.25). However, patients who owned both cats and dogs had an increased risk of peritonitis compared to patients without pets, HR = 1.45 (95% CI: 1.14-1.86). These results suggest that there is no increased risk of peritonitis with pet ownership except for those with both cats and dogs. This information should not prevent PD patients from owning pets but may be helpful for PD patients and their care team to direct training to minimise the risk of peritonitis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".