MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416869549 · doi:10.1681/asn.20250afb9ce3

Outcomes in Vulnerable Populations Starting Dialysis: Informing Resource Allocation and Home Dialysis Targets

2025· article· en· W4416869549 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Najjar, Hongda Li, Madison Odabassian, Amine Banine, Alexander Tom, Frédéric Baroz, Thomas A. Mavrakanas, Emilie Trinh, Rita S. Suri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialysisReferralPsychological interventionIndigenousKidney diseaseDisadvantagedGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Vulnerable populations are those who may be disadvantaged for medical or social reasons, and often experience health care disparities. Government mandated targets for home dialysis do not consider barriers such patients may face. We evaluated key performance indicators for patients starting chronic dialysis to inform resource allocation and home dialysis targets. Methods: All patients >=18 yo who started chronic dialysis for >=30 days from 2017-23 at our center were included. Vulnerable subgroups were defined a priori (indigenous, refugees, language barrier, age>=80). Data was extracted from electronic records and verified via manual chart review. We compared crash starts and 1-year outcomes using multi-level chi-square tests with post-hoc comparisons against non-vulnerable patients (NVP). Results: Of 693 patients, 241 (35%) were identified as being from a vulnerable subgroup (table 1). All outcomes except admission were significantly different between groups. Among refugees, 96% were crash starts (p<0.0001 vs NVP), and 0 started home dialysis (p=0.04 vs. NVP). Of patients >80yo, 32% died (p<0.0001 vs NVP), and only 2% transitioned to home dialysis (p=0.01 vs NVP). While home dialysis and mortality were similar for indigenous vs NVP, indigenous patients were significantly less likely to have kidney transplant or be referred for evaluation (p=0.002 vs NVP). Conclusion: Resource allocation should align with the needs of vulnerable subgroups based on observed outcomes. This includes increasing timely transplant referral for indigenous patients, prioritizing social interventions over home dialysis for refugees, and supporting appropriate end-of-life care in the elderly. Table 1 - Indigenous Refugees Lang Barrier Age ≥ 80 NVP Overall p N 138 26 24 53 452 Crash Start (74) 54% (25) 96%*** (11) 46% (25) 47% (239) 53% <0.001 Transplant Eval (32) 23%** n/a (8) 33% n/a (169) 37% <0.0001 Home Dialysis (19) 14% 0* (3) 13% (1) 2%* (65) 14% 0.031 Death (10) 7% (2) 8% (1) 4% (17) 32%*** (54) 12% <0.0001 Admission (83) 60% (11) 42% (10) 42% (30) 58% (262) 58% 0.248 Post-hoc comparisons vs. NVP: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments→French-language works237,207→