MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396996693 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1425c

Burden of Dialysis, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Employment Comparisons Between Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Center Hemodialysis: Findings from the DOPPS Program

2020· article· en· W4396996693 on OpenAlexaff
Edwina A. Brown, Junhui Zhao, Keith McCullough, Douglas S. Fuller, Ana Elizabeth Figueiredo, Brian Bieber, Fredric O. Finkelstein, Jenny I. Shen, Talerngsak Kanjanabuch, Hideki Kawanishi, Ronald L. Pisoni, Jeffrey Perl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisMedicineHemodialysisDialysisQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineCenter (category theory)Internal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) collect information annually about quality of life, including employment and functional status. Differences in these domains by dialysis modality (PD vs. centre-based hemodialysis) may inform individuals in choosing a dialysis modality. Methods: PD and HD patients with comparable characteristics were analyzed. For baseline patient questionnaire, we used logistic regression to analyze binary outcomes employment (full- or part-time versus unemployed), depression (CES-D ≥10 vs. <10), and functional status (≥11 vs. <11), and used linear mixed models to analyze continuous outcomes (PCS, MCS, and burden of kidney disease score). Change of outcomes were described descriptively. Results: There were 3227 PD and 4544 HD patients at baseline. Burden of kidney disease scores were better for PD compared to HD (overall 9-point adjusted difference, [95%CI: 7-11]) with a higher proportion of patients on PD in the lowest burden range (10%-37%) compared to 8%-24% on HD, depending on country. PD patients also had better PCS and MCS, though these were less marked (overall adjusted difference of 0.9 [0.2-1.6] for PCS, 1.0 [0.2-1.9] for MCS). HD patients had worse functional status scores (adjusted OR HD vs. PD 0.6, [0.5, 0.8] for score ≥ 11); were less likely employed (OR=0.6, [0.5, 0.8]); and had worse CES-D scores (OR=0.8, [0.7, 1.0] for CES-D < 10). In Australia/New Zealand, HD patients had better MCS and CES-D scores and a higher proportion being employed than PD patients. 174 PD patients and 254 HD patients died within one year; 614 PD patients and 535 HD patients left the study between questionnaires. Changes over time in the continuous measures were small. Trends in employment, CES-D score, and functional status were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Compared to HD patients, PD patients reported a lower burden of kidney disease score and among survivors, remains stable on either PD or HD over 12 months. This information, when shared with patients choosing a dialysis modality, could result in an increased uptake of PD. Funding: Commercial Support - Global support for the ongoing DOPPS Programs is provided without restriction on publications by a variety of funders. For details see https://www.dopps.org/AboutUs/Support.aspx.

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)0.007
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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