Variability of Cognitive Performance during Hemodialysis: Standardization of Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Up to 70% of hemodialysis patients over the age of 54 have relevant cognitive impairment. No standardized protocol for the evaluation and monitoring of this population is available today. We hypothesized that the dialysis procedure and the testing environment induce fluctuations of cognitive performance. METHODS: 26 hemodialysis patients were randomly tested using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) before, during and after hemodialysis and inside the dialysis room or alone in a separate room. Tests were performed at weekly intervals using five test variations to prevent learning effects. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was performed as a reference test. RESULTS: MoCA scores significantly differed between the conditions: 'before hemodialysis' revealed the best MoCA score as compared to 'during hemodialysis' or 'after hemodialysis' (p = 0.013). During the combined condition 'before dialysis AND separate room', best performance was achieved (p < 0.001). The BP decline had no significant influence on cognitive performance, whereas the fluid shift showed a significant impact (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Cognitive performance in hemodialysis patients highly depends on the time point and testing environment. Therefore, we strongly suggest a standardization, using the MoCA before hemodialysis in a separate room, in order to make testing results of future research in this field comparable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".