Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intermittent peritoneal dialysis continued to be a viable form of treatment for acute reversible renal failure during the 1970s, most often using the Maxwell technique and the Weston–Roberts catheter, but despite all the work of Henry Tenckhoff and other enthusiastic pioneers, peritoneal dialysis using implantable silicone rubber catheters and cycling machines played only a tiny part in the overall treatment of irreversible uraemia. A symposium in October 1976 in Seattle [1] summarized the position at that time in North America. A Veteran’s Administration co-operative study was conducted from 1975 to compare peritoneal dialysis with home haemodialysis—probably the earliest controlled trial undertaken in the field of dialysis [2]. By 1978 in Seattle, 66 (15.8%) of their stock of 418 patients on long-term dialysis were using intermittent peritoneal dialysis [3] (some for as long as 4 years and an occasional patient for 8 years) and a total of 171 patients had been trained to use the technique, although it remained a minority interest. In Toronto under Dimitrios Oreopoulos’ leadership [4] the technique was taken up, and 70 patients were dialysing in that unit by 1977, whilst in France Charles Mion [5], in Italy Umberto Buoncristiani [6] and in Australia Bob Atkins [7] were protagonists. In the United Kingdom, only the unit of John Goldsmith in Liverpool [8] had any number of patients on intermittent peritoneal dialysis during the 1970s. However, outside these enthusiastic units, in general the technique languished and was little used. The proportion of patients on dialysis receiving this form of treatment in Europe did not change, even though the absolute figures increased quite dramatically, so that even by 1978 only 839 patients out of 35 840 (2.3%) were using intermittent peritoneal dialysis, and probably no more than 500 or so in the United States. This situation, however, was about to change dramatically.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.428 | 0.214 |
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".