Retrospective review of assisted peritoneal dialysis: The Alberta, Canada experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD), where trained health care providers assist individuals with PD in their home, allows individuals, who would otherwise be ineligible, to pursue home dialysis. Alberta Kidney Care South started an assisted PD program in 2011 using licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and switched to health care aids (HCA) July 2018. Methods A retrospective chart review to describe characteristics of assisted PD patients and their outcomes for each of the models of health care. The primary outcome was the duration of assisted PD from initiation to exit. Secondary outcomes included reasons for exit and the proportion of patients who performed independent PD. Results A total of 135 patients received assisted PD, mean age 70.7 ± 11.2 years and 44.4% (60/135) women. The average time to exit from assisted PD was 366.2 ± 378.1 days. There was no difference between time in PD between LPN (1.89 [1.02, 3.85] years) and HCA (2.09 [0.89, 3.26] years), p = 0.98. Main reasons for exit from assisted PD included death 30.4% (41/135) and switching to hemodialysis 26.7% (36/135). Total of 29 patients (21.5%) continued PD independently for an additional 495 ± 399 days. There was no difference in reasons for exit, p = 0.90 or peritonitis rates between the two care models, p = 0.60. Conclusion Assisted PD allows patients to maintain independence in the community and facilitates the uptake of independent PD in a significant proportion. Utilizing an HCA model offers a cost-effective alternative while still providing high-quality 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".