Physical disability, psychological status, and health‐related quality of life in older hemodialysis patients and age‐matched controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed at comparing the elderly adults and normal subjects with regard to their disability, psychological status, and quality of life (QOL). One hundred and twenty-five dialysis patients and 61 controls were recruited in the study. Depression and anxiety symptoms of the patients were evaluated with the Psychological Symptom Screening List (SCL 90-R). For evaluating the disability, the Rivermead mobility index (RMI) was utilized. For evaluating the QOL, we used the short form-36 (SF-36) scale. The Rivermead mobility index of the patients (9.6 +/- 3.4) was found. When compared with controls, dialysis patients had higher levels of disability (p = 0.0001). Depression and anxiety symptom scores of these patients were also significantly higher than that of the controls (p < 0.05). There was a correlation between the disability and depression symptom scores (r: 0.171, p = 0.037). Both physical and mental capacity scores of the dialysis patients were lower than those of the controls (p < 0.05 and p < 0.05) QOL scores for elderly hemodialysis patients were found to be lower. Their disability was higher, making them dependable on others during their daily lives. Specific exercise programs should be developed for these patients. Even the smallest effort in this regard will result in improvements in physical functioning while bringing them significant benefits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".