Depression Levels Before and After Renal Transplantation with Chronic Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF STUDY: Psychosocial parameters are closely related with the physical well-being of ESRD and renal transplantation patients. Additionally, depression has also been increasingly recognized among this group of patients. Our aim in this study was to compare the presence and stage of depression and the confounding parameters in renal transplant recipients and the patients on dialysis therapy. METHODS: Our study included 88 patients (62M/26F, age: 31.1 ± 11.7 years) who were divided into 3 groups: renal transplant recipients (Group I, n = 27), renal transplant waiting list patients (Group II, n = 30) and chronic allograft rejection patients on dialysis therapy (Group III, n = 31). Age, gender, marital status, presence of chronic rejection, duration of transplantation and HD were retrieved from the patient records. Beck Depression Inventory was administrated to each patient by the same psychologist. No acutely interfering illness was present at the time when the test was given. RESULTS: The depression incidence and stage of group I and group III were significantly different (p < 0,003). Although the depression presence and stage was not related with age and gender of the patients, interestingly we observed that it was lower in married patients (p < 0,03). Also there was an inverse correlation between presence and stage of depression and functional graft duration in chronic rejection patients on HD therapy (r = − 0,370; p = 0,04). CONCLUSION: After returning back to HD after chronic rejection, the patients had higher levels of depression. Sharing the physical and psychological problems with another person decreased the depression in married patients; therefore higher social and psychological support must be given to the patients after chronic rejection especially to the single ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".