C reactive protein and depressive symptoms in hemodialysis patients: A questionable association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) on haemodialysis (HD) may have increased C reactive protein (CRP) values and depressive symptoms. There is debate about the strength and nature of previously reported associations. We investigated these issues in a cohort of patients on HD. METHODS: We screened for depressive symptoms using two valadiated depression screening tools: the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Demographic and clinical correlates of depression symptoms were eveluated in adjusted linear and logistic regression models, which included extra renal comorbidity and high CRP (>5 mg/L). FINDINGS: Three hundred and ninety-six HD patients were studied; 63.1% male, mean age 63.1 ± 16.4 years, median CRP 6 (5-15) mg/L. Depression scores were similar in those with normal and high CRP (BDI-II (9(5-17) vs. 11(6-20)) or PHQ (4(2-9) vs. 6(2-10)). In adjusted multivariable regression BDI-II scores were associated with previous history of depression (β 10.8, P < 0.001), serum albumin (β 0.41, P < 0.001), anuria (β 2.4, P < 0.037), diabetes (β 2.7, P = 0.033), and age (β -0.10, P = 0.009). High CRP was not independently associated with BDI-II (β 2.20, P = 0.057), though was with PHQ-9 (β 1.20, P = 0.046). In logistic regression those with high CRP were 1.9 times more likely to score ≥16 on BDI-II screening (P = 0.016), but did not relate significantly to a PHQ-score ≥10. DISCUSSION: A relationship was observed between CRP and depression symptoms, though the effect was small, of unlikely clinical significance, and inconsistent between depression measures. Previous reports of this association may reflect overlap between symptoms of depression and advanced CKD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".