MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403832670 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024y561w5sw

Comparison of Clinical and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Hemodialysis Modalities

2024· article· en· W4403832670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Belén Alejos, Kaitlyn Croft, Anke Winter, Adrián Guinsburg, Jeffrey L. Hymes, John W. Larkin, Len A. Usvyat, Martin Guinsburg, Franklin W. Maddux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisModalitiesIntensive care medicineMedicineInternal medicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hemodiafiltration (HDF) is a well-established kidney replacement therapy. However, the selection of the dialysis modality is normally made according to individual characteristics. We aimed to compare clinical and sociodemographic characteristics (with special interest in mineral bone disease (MBD) markers) according to hemodialysis modality among patients treated in 4 countries in Latin America in the first version of the global database (Apollo Dial DB). Methods: Apollo Dial DB includes adult dialysis patient data from a global kidney network during Jan 2018-Mar 2021 (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, DE). Data anonymization was performed in alignment with recommendations from a re-identification risk determination (Privacy Analytics, Ontario, CA). We included patients with HD or HDF for >90 days, with >90% of their assigned treatment for 12 weeks. Results: A total of 20,350 patients were analyzed, 17,916 (88%) patients on HD, 2,434 (12%) on HDF. Figure shows differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patient groups. Patients in HDF group were younger, had higher vintage, lower prevalence of preexisting CVD and diabetes, higher prevalence of fistula as vascular access, larger use of Vitamin D analogs, phosphate binders and calcimimetics. OCM Kt/V and blood flow were higher among HDF compared to HD. Slightly higher target achievement were observed for calcium and phosphate parameters on HDF group. Conclusion: Prescription of HDF as kidney replacement therapy is not solely determined by specific guidelines but significantly influenced by various patients’ characteristics that may lead to selection bias when analyzing the treatment effect. Hyperphosphatemia is particularly an indication for HDF in most LatAm countries, therefore future research is needed to evaluate how HDF affects MBD markers independently of other patient’s factors. Funding: Commercial Support - Fresenius Medical Care

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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