Patient-Reported Factors and Peritonitis Risk: Results from the Optimizing Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis in the US Study (OPPUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-associated peritonitis has been found to be associated with depression in a single-center study (Troidle 2003). Using international multicenter PDOPPS data, we investigated the association of peritonitis with reported symptoms of depression via the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and quality of life (QoL) measures. Methods: We used Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study phase 1 (2014-2018) data from Australia and New Zealand (A/NZ), Canada (CA), Japan (JP), Thailand (TH), the UK and US in cause-specific recurring-event survival models on peritonitis outcomes, stratified by previous episodes. Patient QoL) was estimated using the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Composite Scores (PCS, MCS), and CES-D. Analyses were adjusted for age, years on PD, serum albumin level, residual urine, black race, sex, heart disease, diabetes, GI bleed, country, and prior peritonitis events. Results: Peritonitis risk was associated with higher CES-D scores (p=.05). Patients who reported CES-D scores ≥15 had 27% higher peritonitis risk compared to patients who reported scores < 10. While associations were weaker for MCS (p=.69) and PCS (p=.40), scores that indicated the lowest tertile of QoL in these areas were associated with 6-7% higher peritonitis risk than scores in the highest tertile (table). Conclusions: While the association between poorer QoL and peritonitis risk was weak and non-significant, the association between having greater symptoms of depression (per CES-D) and future peritonitis risk warrants further investigation, as depression may be a modifiable risk factor. Funding: Other NIH Support - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) - HR (95% CI) CESD <10 (n=2014)CESD 10-14 (n=722)CESD 15+ (n=480) 1(ref)1.14 (0.95, 1.36)1.27 (1.04, 1.55) MCS < 41 (n=983)MCS 41-51 (n=1060)MCS 52+ (n=1068) 1.07 (0.89, 1.27)1.06 (0.91, 1.24)1 (ref) PCS < 34 (n=975)PCS 34-43 (n=1077)PCS 44+(n=1059) 1.06 (0.87, 1.30)0.94 (0.80, 1.12)1 (ref) Hazard ratio of peritonitis, adjusted for case mix. Higher CES-D=more symptoms of depression, higher PCS, MCS = better QoL.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".