MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396992606 · doi:10.1681/asn.20213210s1303a

Knowledge and Practice of Incremental Dialysis: A Survey of Canadian Nephrologists

2021· article· en· W4396992606 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anita Dahiya, Aminu K. Bello, Stephanie E. Thompson, Kara Schick‐Makaroff, Neesh Pannu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisFamily medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Incremental hemodialysis, a strategy to individualize dialysis prescription at initiation, is being linked to enhanced quality of life and acceptability by patients and decreased health care costs. We aimed to explore knowledge and practice pattern regarding facility-based incremental hemodialysis in Canada. Methods: A web-based survey of nephrologists, elicited current incremental hemodialysis (HD) prescribing practices, clinical and patient factors used to determine suitability for treatment, and potential barriers to implementation. The survey was circulated over a period of six weeks (September 21, 2020 and October 30, 2020). Results: The overall response rates 35% (243/691 nephrologists surveyed). Majority (66/111, 59%) of respondents prescribed incremental HD using an individualized approach at the discretion of the nephrologist. Most centers (200/203, 98%) did not report policy or guidance for implementation. Residual urine output was identified as the most important factor for eligibility (112/172, 65%), electrolyte stability (76/172,44%) and existing patient goals of care (69/117, 40%). The majority of nephrologists agreed that dialysis prescriptions are dynamic and should take residual kidney function into consideration; however, 74% of nephrologists did not think there was strong evidence supporting incremental dialysis. Potential barriers identified were patient safety, logistics of scheduling, limited evidence, and acceptance of dose escalation. Despite these barriers, 82% of participants felt that that facility-based incremental dialysis is feasible with their current resources and 78% agreed that with specific exclusion and inclusion criteria, incremental dialysis is a safe option. Conclusions: Incremental hemodialysis is commonly practiced amongst Canadian nephrologists despite a lack of formal criteria for initiation and treatment escalation. This highlights a need for research to guide policy and practice for incremental hemodialysis in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→