Self‐perceived quality of sleep and mortality in <scp>N</scp>orwegian dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep complaints are prevalent and associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression and possibly mortality in dialysis patients. This study aimed to explore possible associations between sleep quality, daytime sleepiness and mortality in dialysis patients. In this study, 301 dialysis patients were followed up to 4.3 years. HRQoL was evaluated at baseline with the Kidney Disease and Quality of Life--Short Form (KDQoL-SF), depression with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), sleep quality with Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and daytime sleepiness with Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The single item "on a scale from 0-10, how would you evaluate your sleep?" in the sleep subscale in KDQoL-SF was used to identify poor (0-5) and good sleepers (6-10). A total of 160 patients (53.3%) were characterized as poor sleepers. They were younger (r = 0.241, P < 0.001), had more depression (BDI: 8.72 ± 6.79 vs. 13.60 ± 8.04, P < 0.001), a higher consumption of hypnotics and antidepressants and reduced HRQoL (Mental Component Summary score: 45.4 ± 11.0 vs. 50.0 ± 10.4, P < 0.001. Physical Component Summary score: 35.0 ± 9.9 vs. 38.5 ± 10.5, P = 0.004). In multivariate analyses, poor sleepers had nearly a twofold increase in mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.92, confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.35, P = 0.022). Daytime sleepiness was not related to mortality (HR 1.01, CI 0.95-1.08, P = 0.751). Sleep complaints predicted increased mortality risk in dialysis patients and should therefore be routinely assessed. Further studies are needed to find suitable treatment options for poor sleep in dialysis patients as it may affect both HRQoL and survival.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".