Clinical and psychosocial factors predicting health‐related quality of life in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many patients with end-stage renal disease have significant impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Most previous studies have focused on clinical factors; however, quality of life can also be affected by psychosocial factors. The aim of this study was to identify the possible predictors of HRQoL among clinical and psychosocial factors in hemodialysis (HD) patients. The study included 101 patients who were undergoing HD. Psychosocial factors were evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. We also assessed laboratory and clinical factors, including albumin, Kt/V as a marker of dialysis adequacy, normalized protein catabolic rate, and duration of HD. The Euro Quality of Life Questionnaire 5-Dimensional Classification (EQ-5D) was used to evaluate HRQoL. The mean EQ-5D index score was 0.704 ± 0.199. The following variables showed a significant association with the EQ-5D index: age (P < 0.001), depression (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.001), support from friends (P < 0.001), cognitive function (P < 0.001), duration of HD (P = 0.034), triglyceride (P = 0.031), total iron-binding capacity (P = 0.036), and phosphorus (P = 0.037). Multiple regression analysis showed that age (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.008 to -0.002), anxiety (95% CI -0.025 to -0.009), and support from friends (95% CI 0.004 to 0.018) were independent predictors of impaired HRQoL. This study explored determinants of impaired HRQoL in HD patients. We found that impaired HRQoL was independently associated with age, anxiety, and support from friends. We should consider psychosocial as well as clinical factors when evaluating ways to improve HRQoL in HD 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".