Evaluation of outcomes with permanent vascular access in an elderly Korean population based on the National Health Insurance Service database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As nearly half of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who initiate hemodialysis (HD) are over 65 years old (commonly defined as elderly), the fistula first strategy is controversial even in HD patients ≥65 years. METHODS: In Korea's National Health Insurance Service database from 2008 to 2019, 41,989 elderly (≥ 65 years) HD patients were retrospectively reviewed to identify their clinical characteristics and outcomes. Vascular access (VA) patencies, risk factors associated with patencies and patient survival between arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and arteriovenous graft (AVG) were compared. RESULTS: Elderly AVF group (n = 28,467) had superior primary, primary assisted, and secondary patencies than elderly AVG group (n = 13,522) (all p values are <0.001). Patient survival was also better in the elderly AVF group than in the elderly AVG (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression analyses for diverse outcomes, AVG (vs. AVF) was identified as a risk factor for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.307; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.272-1.343; p < 0.001), primary patency (adjusted HR: 1.745; 95% CI: 1.701-1.790; p < 0.001), primary-assisted patency (adjusted HR: 2.163; 95% CI: 2.095-2.233; p < 0.001), and secondary patency (adjusted HR: 3.718; 95% CI: 3.533-3.913; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that as a permanent VA for HD, AVF should be strongly considered in elderly (≥ 65 years) ESKD Korean patients. The age limit for AVF creation in ESKD patients should be adjusted more upward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".