MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396992345 · doi:10.1681/asn.20213210s1334c

Nationwide Standardized Peritonitis Reporting: Preliminary Results from the Optimizing the Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis in the United States (OPPUS) Study

2021· article· en· W4396992345 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Perl, Geoffrey A. Block, Martin J. Schreiber, Suzanne Watnick, Shweta Bansal, Vesh Srivatana, Tahsin Masud, Leslie Garcia, Lauren Kane, Keith McCullough, Isaac Teitelbaum, Ronald L. Pisoni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisPeritonitisMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) associated peritonitis is the leading cause of transfer to hemodialysis (HD) in the US. No formal mechanism or surveillance system exists for nationwide peritonitis reporting. Our primary aim was to develop a uniform widescale peritonitis reporting mechanism and evaluate its implementation via a one-year pilot study. Methods: Following literature review, stakeholder consultation, and ISPD guidelines review, a web-based peritonitis tracker tool (OPPUS-Link) was developed. Pilot sites for one-year data collection were selected based on geography and reported peritonitis rates, including 3 medium-large dialysis organizations. We provided formal training, central data review, and adjudication of all peritonitis episodes and outcomes. Results: Initial data for 31/64 participating facilities includes 86 peritonitis episodes (rate of 0.26 episodes/year [326 patient years of follow-up]). PD catheter removal and hospitalization occurred in 14% and 41% of episodes respectively (see table). Ongoing challenges include high rates of culture-negative peritonitis (24% overall) and data retrieval for peritonitis episodes occurring during hospitalization. Conclusions: Standardized, uniform peritonitis reporting is feasible, a first step in national PD-peritonitis surveillance, allowing for benchmarking, outbreak identification, and quality improvement initiative implementation. Further data validation is necessary and integrating routine peritonitis reporting in electronic health records with an overall goal of peritonitis reduction and improved outcomes for PD patients. Funding: Other NIH Support - AHRQ - Preliminary results for 31/64 clinics Measure/variable Total Total patient follow-up (patient-years) 325.8 Total peritonitis episodesreported*, no. 86 Peritonitis eplsode count (rate/patient-year) by organism type: Gram-positive 46 (0.14) Gram-negative 9 (0.03) Culture-negative 21 (0.06) Polymicrobial 6 (0.02) Polymicrobial 6 (0.02) Polymicrobial 6 (0.02) Yeast 3 (0.01) Unknown to clinic 1 (0.00) Peritonitisepisodes after catheter insertion, but prlor to or during PO training, no. 0 Patients with 1 periton it is episode, no. 72 Patients with 2 periton it is episodes, no. 7 Peritonitis rate, overall, event per patient-year 0.26 Peritonitis episodes associated with a hospitalization, no. (%) 35 (40.7%) Hospitalizations with pre-existing pentonitis, (%) 85.1% Peritonitis acquired in hospital [>24 hrs post-admission], (%) 14.9% Peritonitis episodes associated with death (with in 60 days), no. (%) 2 (2.3%) Peritonitis episodes in which PD catheter was removed, no. (%) 12 (14.0%) Peritonitis episodes associated with HD transfers, no. (%) 10 (11.6%) Permanent HD transfer (%) 9.3% Temporary HD transfer (%) 2.3% *Total peritonitis episodesreported, excluding relapse episodes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.135 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→