Comparison of effects of automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis on health‐related quality of life, sleep quality, and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies investigating the effects of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression, and sleep quality exist in the literature. We aimed to determine differences between APD and CAPD modalities with respect to these parameters. Twenty APD and 48 CAPD patients were included in this cross-sectional study. Biochemical values were measured at outpatient evaluation. A modified postsleep inventory was used to evaluate sleep quality. Health-related quality of life and depression were evaluated by the Short Form of Medical Outcomes Study and Beck Depression Inventory, respectively. Automated peritoneal dialysis and CAPD patients were compared in terms of sleep quality, HRQoL, and depression. Our results showed that there were no significant differences between APD and CAPD in any of the studied parameters. Moderate or severe sleep problems were found in 60% and 69% of the APD and CAPD patients, respectively. Mean HRQoL scores for any of the 8 Short Form of Medical Outcomes Study-36 domains were similar in the 2 groups. The mean physical component score was 51.1 ± 21.2 and 48.9 ± 18.2 in APD and CAPD patients, respectively (P=0.672). The mean mental component score was 47.5 ± 20.1 in APD patients, whereas it was 42.4 ± 19.5 in CAPD patients (P=0.291). Depression was detected in 70% of APD and 62.5% of the CAPD patients. The mean Beck Depression Inventory scores were also similar in the 2 groups. This study showed that HRQoL, sleep quality, and depression were similar in APD and CAPD patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".