Dialysis Patients' Preferences on Resuscitation: A Cross-Sectional Study Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: End-stage kidney disease is associated with a 10-100-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality compared to age-, sex-, and race-matched population. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in this cohort has poor outcomes and is often followed by increased functional morbidity. Advance care planning (ACP) is an important aspect of patients' care that is often missed in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and there is growing support for its use. Nephrologists are often involved in end-of-life care decisions for their patients and frequent end-of-life care discussions can provide insight and valuable assistance to patients in the process of decision making. Methods: 2-center cross-sectional study design. Adults > 18 years undergoing regular dialysis for more than 3 months were included. Patients with severe cognitive impairment or unable to understand discussion secondary to language barrier were excluded. After taking consent, a questionnaire was delivered during a structured interview during a routine dialysis session or clinic visit. Demographic data were collected and baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Duke Activity Status Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Willingness to Accept Life-Sustaining Treatment tool were used. Results: 70 participants were included in this analysis representing a 62.5% response rate. There was a clear effect of treatment burden, nature of clinical outcome, and likelihood of the outcome on patients' preferences. Low-burden treatment resulting in return to baseline (vs death) was associated with 98.5% willingness to accept treatment and 94.2% if it was high-burden. When the outcome was severe functional or cognitive impairment then 54.3% and 71.5% would decline low-burden treatment, respectively. The response changed based on the likelihood of the outcome. In terms of resuscitation, 82.8% and 77.4% of the participants would be in favour of receiving CPR and mechanical ventilation, respectively, at their current health state. Over 94% of patients stated they had never discussed ACP while 59.4% expressed their wish to discuss this with their primary nephrologist. Conclusions: ACP should be incorporated in managing CKD with an aim to improve communication and encourage patient and family involvement.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".