Renal function in geriatric psychiatry patients compared to non-psychiatric older adults: effects of lithium use and other factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic renal failure is very common, affecting 30%-40% of community-dwelling elderly. We wished to verify whether geriatric psychiatry patients are at increased risk of renal dysfunction compared to elderly controls, as well as whether lithium exposure and other factors are important predictors of risk. METHOD: This is a four-year retrospective cohort and nested case-control study at a Canadian tertiary-care hospital using data from March 2007 to March 2011. We compared 82 geriatric psychiatry outpatients and 200 psychotropic-naïve family medicine controls aged ≥65. Our main continuous measure of renal outcome was change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Multivariate analyses were performed to determine potential risk factors for renal dysfunction in geriatric psychiatry patients, including age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, diuretics, and lithium duration. RESULTS: Clinically important decreases in eGFR (>8 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) were found in 40.2% of geriatric psychiatry patients compared to 29.5% of controls (p = 0.040). Multivariate analyses found that lithium duration was independently associated with adverse renal outcome in patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). In this sub-population, lithium users had clinically important decreases in eGFR when compared to non-lithium users: 10.3 vs. 0.40 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Geriatric psychiatry patients are at a greater risk for clinically important decreases of renal function than similarly aged controls. Lithium appears to be an important risk factor for renal dysfunction when eGFR is <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). However, in the majority of older adults who have normal kidney function, lithium use appears to be safe.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".