MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978955371 · doi:10.1136/adc.2003.037093

Neuropsychological functioning in end-stage renal disease

2004· article· en· W1978955371 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Harry N. Bawden

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthorityCanadian Bioethics Society
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenSick Kids Foundation
KeywordsNeuropsychologyMedicineEnd stage renal diseaseSiblingDialysisDiseasePediatricsRating scaleClinical psychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To compare the neuropsychological functioning and behaviour of children with non-syndromic end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and sibling controls. METHODS: The study was carried out at two tertiary care paediatric teaching hospitals, in Halifax and Vancouver, Canada. Children with ESRD were on a renal transplant waiting list and either pending dialysis or on dialysis therapy. Twenty two patient-sibling pairs were evaluated. Neuropsychological assessments consisting of measures of intelligence, academic achievement, memory, and motor abilities were carried out. Maternal ratings of behaviour and self-report rating of self-esteem were collected. RESULTS: The Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs of patients with ESRD were significantly lower than the IQs of the sibling controls. The mean differences were 8.6, 11.7, and 10.9 points, respectively. ESRD patients also had significantly more difficulty on measures of fine motor coordination and ability to copy geometric designs than sibling controls. There were no differences between groups on measures of academic achievement, memory, behaviour, or self-esteem. CONCLUSIONS: Although children with ESRD exhibited mild deficits on measures of intelligence and some measures of motor abilities, their neuropsychological outcome was more favourable than earlier reports indicated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207