Global variability of vascular and peritoneal access for chronic dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Vascular and peritoneal access are essential elements for sustainability of chronic dialysis programs. Data on availability, patterns of use, funding models, and workforce for vascular and peritoneal accesses for dialysis at a global scale is limited. METHODS: An electronic survey of national leaders of nephrology societies, consumer representative organizations, and policymakers was conducted from July to September 2018. Questions focused on types of accesses used to initiate dialysis, funding for services, and availability of providers for access creation. RESULTS: Data from 167 countries were available. In 31 countries (25% of surveyed countries), >75% of patients initiated haemodialysis (HD) with a temporary catheter. Seven countries (5% of surveyed countries) had >75% of patients initiating HD with arteriovenous fistulas or grafts. Seven countries (5% of surveyed countries) had >75% of their patients starting HD with tunnelled dialysis catheters. 57% of low-income countries (LICs) had >75% of their patients initiating HD with a temporary catheter compared to 5% of high-income countries (HICs). Shortages of surgeons to create vascular access were reported in 91% of LIC compared to 46% in HIC. Approximately 95% of participating countries in the LIC category reported shortages of surgeons for peritoneal dialysis (PD) access compared to 26% in HIC. Public funding was available for central venous catheters, fistula/graft creation, and PD catheter surgery in 57%, 54% and 54% of countries, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial variation in the availability, funding, workforce, and utilization of vascular and peritoneal access for dialysis across countries regions, with major gaps in low-income countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".