Prevalence and correlates of functional dependence among maintenance dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional dependence is an important determinant of longevity and quality of life. The purpose of the current study was to determine the prevalence and correlates of functional dependence among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving maintenance dialysis. We enrolled 148 participants with ESRD from five clinics. Functional status, as measured by basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL, IADL), was ascertained by validated questionnaires. Functional dependence was defined as needing assistance in at least one of seven IADLs or at least one of four ADLs. Demographic characteristics, chronic health conditions, anthropometric measurements, and laboratories were assessed by a combination of self-report and chart review. Cognitive function was assessed with a neurocognitive battery, and depressive symptoms were assessed by questionnaire. Mean age of the sample was 56.2 ± 14.6 years. Eighty-seven participants (58.8%) demonstrated dependence in ADLs or IADLs, 70 (47.2%) exhibited IADL dependence alone, and 17 (11.5%) exhibited combined IADL and ADL dependence. In a multivariable-adjusted model, stroke, cognitive impairment, and higher systolic blood pressure were independent correlates of functional dependence. We found no significant association between demographic characteristics, chronic health conditions, depressive symptoms or laboratory measurements, and functional dependence. Impairment in executive function was more strongly associated with functional dependence than memory impairment. Functional dependence is common among ESRD patients and independently associated with stroke, systolic blood pressure, and executive function impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 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".