Patient‐reported cognitive functioning and daily functioning in chronic dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective cognitive impairment negatively affects daily functioning, health-related quality of life, and health care consumption, and is predictive of future cognitive decline in many patient populations. However, no subjective measures of multidimensional cognitive functioning have been evaluated for dialysis patients. Our purposes were to examine (1) the association between patient-reported (subjective) cognitive functioning and objective cognitive functioning and (2) the relationships between subjective and objective cognitive functioning and everyday functioning of dialysis patients. We used baseline data from an ongoing longitudinal observational study of trajectories in dialysis patients' multidimensional quality of life. One hundred thirty-five patients completed a telephone-based neuropsychological battery (Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone, a measure of objective cognitive functioning), a measure of subjective cognitive functioning (Patient's Assessment of Own Functioning Inventory), and measures of everyday functioning (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [IADL] scales). After controlling for age and education, there was a modest correlation (r = 0.33, P > 0.001) between subjective and objective cognitive functioning. Multivariate logistic regression models showed subjective, but not objective, cognitive functioning was a significant predictor of both ADLs and IADLs. The findings suggest the potential clinical value of subjective measures of cognitive functioning, not to replace objective measures or diagnostic tests, but rather to optimize the meaningfulness of clinical assessment and management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".