MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403834870 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024s9vna3yg

Profiles of Home Medication Use in Patients on Dialysis Globally

2024· article· en· W4403834870 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Astrid Feuersenger, Luisa Roth, Melanie Wolf, Ottó Árkossy, John W. Larkin, Jan Walter, Hans-Juergen Arens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisIntensive care medicineHome dialysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Global patterns of medication use in dialysis are undefined. This project aims to provide a real-world view of home medication use in dialysis using a global dialysis dataset from 40 countries called Apollo Dial DB. The most common prescribed medications administered at home by patients were compared by modality. 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). Home medications were analyzed based on top (most common) five pharmacological classes defined by first 4-digits of ATC code; classes were stratified by modality. Results: In Apollo Dial DB 109,888 in-center hemodialysis (HD) patients had 1,459,954 ATC code medication entries (13.3 drugs/patient), 6,466 peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients had 35,873 ATC codes (5.5 drugs/patient), and 1,899 home HD patients 10,228 ATC codes (5.4 drugs/patient). Top pharmacological classes included phosphate binders and antihypertensives for all modalities, yet differences existed by modality (Figure 1). Conclusion: Home medication use appears 2-fold higher for in-center HD versus PD and home HD. Most common medications included calcium phosphate binders, 50% of in-center, 57% of home HD, and 33% of PD patients. Beta-blockers were commonly used for hypertension management in HD (48% in-center, 37% home patients), while calcium channel blockers were most used in PD (33%). Antithrombotics were more prevalent in HD (48% in-center, 54% home patients) and gastroesophageal medications in home HD patients (33%). Antiemetics and diuretics were more prevalent in PD patients (42% and 33%). Insights provide benchmarks for the community. Further research is needed accounting for duration of use and considering real-world application of various drugs (e.g., GLP1 drugs, HIF-PH inhibitors).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207