Approximating the Proportion of Individuals With Kidney Failure Who Die Without Kidney Replacement Therapy in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Quantifying the number and proportion of people with kidney failure (KF) who receive conservative kidney management is vital for health care system benchmarking and planning. It is not easy to ascertain this value precisely at the population level, but we can approximate it using information from different data sources to estimate the proportion of patients with advanced kidney disease who die without receiving dialysis or a transplant and should receive conservative kidney management. Objective: To approximate the proportion of people with KF in Ontario, Canada, who die without receiving kidney replacement therapy. Design: A review of unpublished provincial renal agency reports of 3 retrospective population-based cohorts combined with clinical interpretation. Patients: ) or who received a transplant during follow-up were excluded from the analysis. Measurements and Methods: The 3 cohorts were derived at ICES and used linked health care databases for the province of Ontario, Canada. In 2016, Ontario had a population of about 14 million people. Two nephrologists reviewed the data to provide the clinical approximation. Results: . During the same period, 13 511 individuals started dialysis or received a preemptive kidney transplant (the KRT cohort). There were 7259 individuals in the low eGFR cohort; over the following year, 66% started dialysis, 20% died without dialysis, and 14% were alive without starting dialysis. The clinical approximation is that between 13 and 16% of people with KF die without receiving kidney replacement therapy. Limitations: The data reports lacked certain information to inform the clinical approximation. There was no information on the conversations health professionals had with people about kidney replacement therapy, any decisions made about receiving conservative care, or the circumstances that preceded death without kidney replacement therapy. Conclusions: After reviewing data from the 3 cohorts, we clinically approximate that 1 in 6 people with KF in Ontario, Canada, die without receiving dialysis and should receive conservative kidney management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".