The impact of shortening patient–doctor contact duration on early peritoneal dialysis-related infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection is a severe complication. This study investigated the relationship between patient-doctor contact (PDC) duration and early PD-related infection. In the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) Korea, incident dialysis patients receiving PD were divided into two groups based on PDC duration (< 15 min versus ≥ 15 min), which was defined as the duration a nephrologist typically spends with a patient receiving PD during each visit according to the facility practice pattern. Early risks of PD-related infections, such as peritonitis and catheter-related infection (onset within 3 and 12 months of PD), were compared to the PDC duration using Cox regression. The study included 276 patients (184 [66.7%] in the shorter PDC group [< 15 min] and 92 [33.3%] in the longer PDC group [≥ 15 min]). The average age did not differ between the groups. The incidences of 3- and 12-month PD-related infections were significantly lower in the longer PDC group than in the shorter PDC group (3 months: 1.1% versus 9.8%, P = 0.007; 12 months: 9.8% versus 23.4%, P = 0.007). Longer PDC was independently associated with a lower risk of PD-related infections at 3 and 12 months (3 months: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.85, P = 0.034; 12 months: aHR, 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.99, P = 0.048). Overall, a longer PDC duration was associated with a significantly lower risk of early PD-related infection.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".