Impact of frailty on mortality and transfer to hemodialysis after peritoneal dialysis initiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with poor outcomes for patients on dialysis; however, dedicated studies among incident peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are lacking. This study aims to determine the association between frailty and mortality/transfer to hemodialysis (HD) among incident PD patients and identify whether dialysis modality (PD vs. HD) modifies the association of frailty and mortality following dialysis initiation. METHODS: A single center retrospective cohort of incident PD and HD patients was analyzed from 2009 to 2020 (last follow-up December 2021). The first version of the clinical frailty scale (CFS) ranging from 1, very fit, to 7, severely frail, was used to characterize patient frailty at dialysis initiation. Time to death/transfer to HD was analyzed using multivariable Cox Survival analyses. Patients were censored at transplant/last follow-up. Dialysis modality was evaluated as a potential effect modifier on the impact of frailty on mortality. RESULTS: Of 253 patients who initiated PD, 182 had completed CFS scores. Mean age at dialysis initiation was 63 ± 13 years and mean CFS score was 3 ± 1. There were 42 deaths and 69 instances of transfer to HD over 379 patient-years at risk. Vulnerable/frail patients (CFS ≥ 4) had a two-fold increase in the adjusted relative hazard for death/transfer to HD (HR 2.04, 95% CI [1.10-3.77]). Incident dialysis modality did not modify the association between frailty and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A higher severity of frailty at PD initiation is associated with both mortality/transfer to HD and mortality alone, and the association between frailty and mortality is not modified by dialysis modality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".