Surviving the year: Predictors of mortality in conservative kidney management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Conservative kidney management (CKM) is a recognised treatment option for selected patients with chronic kidney disease stage 5 (CKD G5), but prognostic indicators for mortality and optimal timing for palliative care transition remain uncertain. Method: This is a single-centre, prospective cohort study of CKD G5 patients who opted for CKM, conducted between April 2021 and September 2024, with longitudinal monitoring of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; Palliative Perfor-mance Scale (PPS); Resources Utilisation Group.Activities of Daily Living (RUG-ADL) scale; Clinical Frailty Score; Karnofsky Performance Score; and clinical and laboratory data. Primary outcomes included identifying baseline mortality predictors and validating the PPS for survival estimation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results: (P<0.01). Subsequent PPS correlated strongly with survival, with median survival of 1.8 months for PPS <50, 5.3 months for PPS 50.60, and 7.9 months for PPS 70.80 (P=0.03). Conclusion: Baseline eGFR and serum albumin predict 1-year mortality in CKM patients. PPS offers a practical tool for identifying patients requiring palliative care transition, supporting personalised care pathways and timely integration of palliative 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".