Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excessive fluid overload is common in hemodialysis patients. Understanding fluid intake behavior in relation to used cognitive coping style would serve the fluid restriction consultation. The aim of this study was to explore whether hemodialysis patients' fluid intake behavior differs as a function of used coping style. Secondary analysis of data from 51 hemodialysis patients regarding cognitive coping style (assessed by the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory) and fluid intake behavior were used. The participants' mean age was 62.9 years (range 27-84), they had received dialysis treatment for 3.9 years on average (range 0-22), 63% were male and they had gained 3.6% (±1.3) of their dry body weight during the interdialytic period. There was a significant difference in fluid intake behavior between coping groups (F = 3.899, d.f. 2, P = 0.027). The difference (P = 0.028) was isolated between patients with cognitive blunting style and patients with neutral coping style. Identification of hemodialysis patients using cognitive avoidance strategies can be advantageous in renal care. Fluid advice provided may have to be adjusted to the used coping style, especially for patients with a blunting coping style. However, the findings need to be confirmed, and the effect of individualized counseling needs to be evaluated in forthcoming studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".