MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychological Distress and Depression in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

2012· review· en· W1934058852 on OpenAlexaff
Dóra Zalai, Lilla Szeifert, Márta Novák

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Dialysis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)PopulationKidney diseaseMood disordersTransplantationQuality of life (healthcare)DistressMoodKidney transplantationHemodialysisIntensive care medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineAnxietyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depressive disorders are 1.5-4 times more prevalent in medically ill patients than in the general population. Mood disorders can be regarded as the final common pathway developing from the interaction among multiple pathophysiological, psychological, and socioeconomic stressors that chronic illness imposes on the individual. Symptoms of clinical depression affect approximately 25% patients on hemodialysis and can be associated with low quality of life and increased mortality. The epidemiology of depressive disorders is less well studied in the renal transplant population. However, depression is a risk factor for poor outcomes, such as graft failure and death after renal transplantation. A high prevalence of severe psychological distress in patients with advanced CKD and its impact on CKD outcomes call for screening and intervention integrated in routine renal care. Preliminary data indicate that some of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor agents and time-limited, manualized, structured psychotherapies can be safe and effective for treating depression in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations169
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in DialysisSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207