Cognitive outcome following kidney transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While a handful of studies have assessed cognition in kidney transplant (TX) recipients, the neuropsychological presentation of this population is not yet clear. Kidney transplantation typically leads to improvement of metabolic factors associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comorbid diseases independently linked with cognitive compromise often persist, and for this reason, cognitive difficulties may still be present following transplantation. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed cognition in 42 kidney TX recipients, 45 outpatients with pre-dialysis CKD and 49 healthy controls using measures of verbal learning and memory and executive functioning. RESULTS: Findings indicated that TX and CKD patients demonstrated significantly worse verbal learning and memory in comparison to controls. While both CKD and TX patients exhibited significantly worse performance than controls on a response inhibition measure, only CKD patients performed significantly worse on a set-shifting task. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that, in comparison to controls, verbal memory and executive functioning skills are worse in both CKD and TX patients. Further research is needed to determine the etiology and extent of cognitive compromise, as well as to assess the clinical implications of these findings.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".