Effects of modality change on health‐related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring renal replacement have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and there is general consensus that HRQoL improves with successful transplant and evidence of improvement with frequent hemodialysis. This study reports changes in HRQoL associated with changes in treatment modality to daily hemodialysis (DHD) and transplant among patients requiring renal replacement. This cohort study had assessments at baseline and 6-month following modality change. Subjects were nondiabetic individuals receiving conventional hemodialysis who (a) remained on conventional hemodialysis (n = 13), (b) changed to daily hemodialysis (DHD) (n = 10), or (c) received a living donor transplant (n = 20). Thirty-four healthy controls were assessed once for comparison. HRQoL was measured using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument. The Physical Functioning and Physical Composite Scale scores were primary outcomes. Transplantation resulted in significant improvements in six of eight generic scales and the physical composite scale (PCS). Those changing to DHD had significant improvements in Physical Function and PCS scales. Those remaining on dialysis remained lower than controls on all scales except for Vitality; the transplant group remained lower than controls only on the Vitality and General Health scales. Transplant resulted in significant improvements in four of the seven disease-specific scales (symptoms, effects, and burden of kidney disease, work). DHD resulted in improvements in the effects of kidney disease. Modality change to transplant results in significant improvement in HRQoL, achieving levels similar to controls. Change to daily hemodialysis improves only select HRQoL domains and remains low in disease-specific domains.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".