MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963961872 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6111877.v1

Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Implementation: A Pilot Program From a Large Dialysis Unit in Quebec

2022· other· en· W6963961872 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisHazard ratioHemodialysisDialysisPeritonitisRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Kidney failure prevalence is increasing in older patients for whom dialysis initiation can be challenging. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD), where PD is performed with the help of a healthcare worker, can facilitate PD for frailer patients who may not be candidate otherwise.Objectives:This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing the first pilot assisted PD program in Quebec (Canada) and to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of the PD cohort before and after assisted PD availability.Design:Observational retrospective cohort study.Setting and Population:All adult patients initiating PD between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center dialysis unit were included.Measurements:Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with PD were compared between (1) the “pre” (2015-2017) and the “post” assisted PD era (2018-2020) and (2) patients with assisted PD and independent PD in the more recent period.Methods:The primary outcome was peritonitis rate over the first year. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, transfers to in-center hemodialysis (HD) and mortality.Results:Overall, 124 patients initiated PD with an annual incidence of 17 ± 3 patients during the “pre” and 24 ± 8 patients during the “post” assisted PD era (P = .18). First-year peritonitis rate was similar over the 2 eras. Years of PD initiation and use of assisted PD were not associated with risk peritonitis (over total follow-up) after adjustment. Adjusted hazard of transfer to HD or death was higher during the “post” era (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-5.58). Seventeen patients received assisted PD including 13 (18%) of the 72 patients initiated between 2018 and 2020. Patients with assisted PD were older than those with independent PD (72 [64-84] vs. 59 [47-67], P = .006) and received assistance for 0.8 (0.4-1.5) years. When comparing assisted and independent cohorts, there were no differences in crude rates of peritonitis or hospitalization.Limitations:Single-center study with small sample size.Conclusion:This study shows the feasibility of implementing an assisted PD program, with favorable overall outcomes including similar rates of peritonitis during the first year after PD initiation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207