Clinical Features and Severity of Nonspecific Symptoms in Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonspecific symptoms are common in dialysis patients but few methods are available to measure their severity and their response to alteration in dialysis therapy. To determine the clinical features and measure the severity of the most important symptoms in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, 97 dialysis patients were interviewed, 63 of whom were reinterviewed 1 year later. For comparison 82 transplant recipients were also interviewed. The six most important symptoms in dialysis patients (using the product of the patient's perception of severity and prevalence) were tiredness, cramps, pruritus, dyspnea, headaches and joint pain. The symptoms were long-standing, occurred frequently, with little difference in prevalence between hemo- and peritoneal dialysis patients, and were often unrelated to a hemodialysis session. For each symptom, several dimensions of severity were assessed including frequency, duration, effect on sleep, daily living, activity, subjective quality of life and necessity for drug therapy. Often these dimensions did not correlate with patient's perception of severity. For each symptom these items were combined to give an aggregate score with a range 0-10. Interobserver reproducibility for each symptom score was greater than or equal to 0.7 but intraobserver reproducibility was poor for 3 symptoms, because of the fluctuating nature of the symptoms. Construct validity was demonstrated by finding a significantly worse distribution of aggregate scores for tiredness, cramps, pruritus, dyspnea and nausea/vomiting in dialysis compared to transplant patients. Aggregate scores changed little after 1 year's follow-up in stable dialysis patients but significant improvement in the aggregate scores for tiredness, dyspnea and nausea/vomiting were observed in 14 patients after successful transplantation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".