Multicentre registry analysis of incremental peritoneal dialysis incidence and associations with patient outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Incremental peritoneal dialysis (PD) is increasingly advocated to reduce treatment burden and costs, with potential to better preserve residual kidney function. Global prevalence of incremental PD use is unknown and use in Australia and New Zealand has not been reported. Methods: Binational registry analysis including incident adult PD patients in Australia and New Zealand (2007–2017), examining incidence of and outcomes associated with incremental PD (first recorded PD exchange volume <42 L/week (incremental) vs. ≥42 L/week (standard)). Results: Incremental PD use significantly increased from 2.7% of all incident PD in 2007 to 11.1% in 2017 (mean increase 0.84%/year). Duration of incremental PD use was 1 year or less in 67% of cases. Male sex, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) or Māori ethnicities, age 45–59 years, medical comorbidities or treatment at a centre with low use of automated PD or icodextrin was associated with lower incidence of incremental PD use. Low body mass index and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate was associated with higher incidence. After accounting for patient and centre variables, commencing PD with an incremental prescription was associated with reduced peritonitis risk (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61–0.86).When kidney transplantation and death were considered as competing risks, the association between incremental PD and peritonitis was not significant (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0.91, 95%CI 0.71–1.17, p = 0.5), however cumulative incidence of 30-day transfer to haemodialysis was lower in those receiving incremental PD (SHR 0.73, 95%CI 0.56–0.94, p = 0.01). There was no association between incremental PD and death. Conclusions: Incremental PD use is increasing in Australia and New Zealand and is not associated with patient harm.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".