Comparison of the extent and pattern of cognitive impairment among predialysis, dialysis and transplant patients: A cross‐sectional study from Australia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the extent of cogntive impairment and the types of cognitive deficits in an Australian cohort of four patient groups with end stage kidney disease. Characteristics predicting the presence of cognitive impairment were also evaluated. METHODS: , were undertaking peritoneal or haemodialysis, or had received a kidney transplant. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool was used to screen the study participants for cognitive impairment and evaluate cognitive deficits. Cognitive impairment was defined as a total Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool score ≤24/30. RESULTS: The extent of cognitive impairment varied between the four groups with end stage kidney disease. Factors predicting the presence of cognitive impairment included undertaking dialysis, age ≥65, male gender and the presence of diabetes or cerebrovascular disease. Deficits in executive function, attention, language, visuospatial skills, memory and orientation were common among the study participants, and the extent of these deficits varied between groups. Limitations to the study included the cross-sectional design, and that the presence of confounders like depression were not recorded. CONCLUSION: The impact of disparities in the cognitive capabilities identified in this study are likely to be far reaching. Tailoring of education and self-management programmes to the cognitive deficits of individuals is required.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it