Caregiver burden among nocturnal home hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have suggested improvements in quality of life (QOL) in patients on quotidian dialysis compared with conventional hemodialysis. Few studies have focused on the burden and QOL in caregivers of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD). We aim to assess the caregivers' burden, QOL, and depressive symptoms and to compare these parameters with their patients' counterparts. Cross-sectional surveys were sent to 61 prevalent NHD patients and their caregivers. Surveys assessed demographics, general self-perceived health using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and the presence of depression using the Beck Depression Inventory. Subjective burden on caregivers was assessed by the Caregiver Burden scale and was compared with perceived burden by the patients. Thirty-six patients and 31 caregivers completed the survey. The majority of caregivers were female (66%), spouse (81%) with no comorbid illness (72%). Their mean age was 51 ± 11 years. Patients were mostly male (64%) with a median ESRD vintage of 60 months (interquartile range [IQR], 18-136 months) and a mean age of 52 ± 10 years. Compared to caregivers, patients had lower perceived physical health score but had similar mental health score. Depression criteria were present in 47% of patients and 25% of caregivers. Total global burden perceived by either caregivers or patients is relatively low. Although there is a relatively low global burden perceived by caregivers and patients undergoing NHD, a significant proportion of both groups fulfilled criteria for depression. Further innovative approaches are needed to support caregivers and patients performing NHD to reduce the intrusion of caring for a chronic illness and the risk of developing depression.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".