Factors affecting access to dialysis for patients with <scp>end‐stage</scp> kidney disease in <scp>Sub‐Saharan</scp> Africa: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This scoping review examined the factors affecting access to dialysis for patients with end-stage kidney disease in Sub-Saharan Africa. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: The scoping review is conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and modelled by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review. RESULTS: A descriptive content analysis of 30 included articles revealed three main findings affecting access and use of dialysis: Health system-related factors, health provider-related factors and patient factors. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Equity in renal replacement therapy access and use will require concerted advocacy for good public policy, healthcare delivery, workforce capacity and education.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it