MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4319769486 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100613

Cognitive Impairment, Frailty, and Adverse Outcomes Among Prevalent Hemodialysis Recipients: Results From a Large Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom

2023· article· en· W4319769486 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueKidney Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham Charity
Mots-clésHemodialysisProspective cohort studyMedicineCohortCognitive impairmentCohort studyAdverse effectGerontologyCognitionDemographyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Rationale & ObjectiveFrailty and cognitive impairment are common in hemodialysis recipients and have been associated with high mortality. There is considerable heterogeneity in frailty reporting, with little comparison between commonly used frailty tools and little exploration of the interplay between cognition and frailty. The aims were to explore the relationship between frailty scores and cognition and their associations with hospitalization and mortality.Study DesignProspective cohort studySetting & PopulationPrevalent hemodialysis recipients linked to national datasets for hospitalization and mortality.PredictorsMontreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index (FI), Edmonton Frailty Scale, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) were performed at baseline. Cognitive impairment was defined as MoCA scores of <26, or <21 in dexterity impairment, <18 in visual impairment.OutcomesMortality, hospitalization.Analytical ApproachCox proportional hazards model for mortality, censored for end of follow-up. Negative binomial regression for admission rates, censored for death/end of follow-up.ResultsIn total, 448 participants were recruited with valid MoCAs and followed up for a median of 685 days. There were 103 (23%) deaths and 1,120 admissions of at least one night. Cognitive impairment was identified in 346 (77.2%) participants. Increasing frailty by all definitions was associated with poorer cognition. Cognition was not associated with mortality (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03; P = 0.41) or hospitalization (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = 0.39) on multivariable analyses. There were interactions between MoCA scores and increasing frailty by FI (P = 0.002) and Clinical Frailty Scale (P = 0.005); admissions were highest when both MoCA and frailty scores were high, and when both scores were low.LimitationsAs frailty is a dynamic state, a single cross-sectional assessment may not accurately reflect its year-to-year variability. In addition, these findings are in maintenance dialysis and may not be transferable to incident hemodialysis. There were small variations in application of frailty tool criteria from other studies, which may have influenced the results.ConclusionsCognitive impairment is highly prevalent in this hemodialysis cohort. The interaction between cognition and frailty on rates of admission suggests the MoCA offers value in identifying higher risk hemodialysis populations with both high and low degrees of frailty. Frailty and cognitive impairment are common in hemodialysis recipients and have been associated with high mortality. There is considerable heterogeneity in frailty reporting, with little comparison between commonly used frailty tools and little exploration of the interplay between cognition and frailty. The aims were to explore the relationship between frailty scores and cognition and their associations with hospitalization and mortality. Prospective cohort study Prevalent hemodialysis recipients linked to national datasets for hospitalization and mortality. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index (FI), Edmonton Frailty Scale, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) were performed at baseline. Cognitive impairment was defined as MoCA scores of <26, or <21 in dexterity impairment, <18 in visual impairment. Mortality, hospitalization. Cox proportional hazards model for mortality, censored for end of follow-up. Negative binomial regression for admission rates, censored for death/end of follow-up. In total, 448 participants were recruited with valid MoCAs and followed up for a median of 685 days. There were 103 (23%) deaths and 1,120 admissions of at least one night. Cognitive impairment was identified in 346 (77.2%) participants. Increasing frailty by all definitions was associated with poorer cognition. Cognition was not associated with mortality (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03; P = 0.41) or hospitalization (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = 0.39) on multivariable analyses. There were interactions between MoCA scores and increasing frailty by FI (P = 0.002) and Clinical Frailty Scale (P = 0.005); admissions were highest when both MoCA and frailty scores were high, and when both scores were low. As frailty is a dynamic state, a single cross-sectional assessment may not accurately reflect its year-to-year variability. In addition, these findings are in maintenance dialysis and may not be transferable to incident hemodialysis. There were small variations in application of frailty tool criteria from other studies, which may have influenced the results. Cognitive impairment is highly prevalent in this hemodialysis cohort. The interaction between cognition and frailty on rates of admission suggests the MoCA offers value in identifying higher risk hemodialysis populations with both high and low degrees of frailty.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,745

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle