Global access and quality of conservative kidney management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conservative kidney management (CKM) describes supportive care for people living with kidney failure who choose not to receive or are unable to access kidney replacement therapy (KRT). This study captured the global availability of CKM services and funding. METHODS: Data came from the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health survey conducted between June and September 2022. Availability of CKM, infrastructure, guidelines, medications and training were evaluated. RESULTS: CKM was available in some form in 61% of the 165 responding countries. CKM chosen through shared decision-making was available in 53%. Choice-restricted CKM-for those unable to access KRT-was available in 39%. Infrastructure to provide CKM chosen through shared decision-making was associated with national income level, reported as being "generally available" in most healthcare settings for 71% of high-income countries, 50% of upper-middle-income countries, 33% of lower-middle-income countries and 42% of low-income countries. For choice-restricted CKM, these figures were 29%, 50%, 67% and 58%, respectively. Essential medications for pain and palliative care were available in just over half of the countries, highly dependent upon income setting. Training for caregivers in symptom management in CKM was available in approximately a third of countries. CONCLUSIONS: Most countries report some capacity for CKM. However, there is considerable variability in terms of how CKM is defined, as well as what and how much care is provided. Poor access to CKM perpetuates unmet palliative care needs, and must be addressed, particularly in low-resource settings where death from untreated kidney failure is common.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".