MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4397045780 · doi:10.1681/asn.20233411s149c

Hospitalisation Risk in the Integrated Home Dialysis Model: Analysis of the Canadian Organ Replacement Register

2023· article· en· W4397045780 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louis‐Charles Desbiens, Karthik Tennankore, Rémi Goupil, Jeffrey Perl, Emilie Trinh, Christopher T. Chan, Annie‐Claire Nadeau‐Fredette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalDalhousie UniversityMcGill University Health CentreHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontSt. Michael's HospitalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegister (sociolinguistics)DialysisMedicineHome dialysisIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The integrated home dialysis model proposes the initiation of dialysis with peritoneal dialysis (PD) followed by transition to home hemodialysis (HHD) after PD ends. Outcomes of integrated home dialysis versus a “direct to HHD approach” are poorly known. We aimed to compare the hospitalization risk of patients in integrated home dialysis (before, during and after transfer to HHD) with patients directly initiating HHD. Methods: We studied patients in the Canadian Organ Replacement Register who initiated PD or HHD between 2005 and 2018. A 1:1 propensity score was used to match patients transitioning from PD to HHD in less than 90 days after PD (“PD+HHD” group) to patients with HHD as the first home-dialysis modality (“HHD” group). Our outcome was all-cause hospitalization, assessed from the beginning of home dialysis (PD or HHD) until transfer to facility HD, death, end of follow-up (December 31st 2019) or kidney transplant. Hospitalizations were compared between groups with shared frailty models in three periods: before PD-HHD transition, during transition, and after transition (Fig 1).Figure 1: :Results: From 63,327 patients, 13,726 initiated PD and 745 initiated HHD. 4,420 patients transferred from PD to facility HD and 163 transferred to HHD (3.6% of transfers; median time on PD 1.9 years). Hospitalization risk was similar between groups in the period before and after the PD-HHD transition but was significantly increased during the transition period (Table). Similar trends were observed when these periods were sub-divided by year (Fig 2).Figure 2:Conclusions: Patients transitioning from PD to HHD do not have an increased hospitalization risk outside their transfer period when compared with patients who start dialysis directly in HHD. Funding: Government Support - Non-U.S. Table - Time period Hospitalization rate (PD-HHD; events/pt-year) Hospitalization rate (HHD; events/pt-year) Hazard ratio (95% CI) Before transition 0.44 0.52 0.91 (0.61-1.37) During transition 1.88 0.73 2.69 (1.25-5.82) After transition 0.73 0.79 0.83 (0.56-1.24)

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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