Prevalence and correlates of cognitive impairment in kidney transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of cognitive impairment in dialysis patients. The prevalence of cognitive impairment after kidney transplantation is unknown. METHODS: Study Design: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Single center study of prevalent kidney transplant recipients from a transplant clinic in a large academic center. INTERVENTION: Assessment of cognition using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Demographic and clinical variables associated with cognitive impairment were also examined. Outcomes and Measurements: a) Prevalence of cognitive impairment defined by a MoCA score of <26. b) Multivariable linear and logistic regression to examine the association of demographic and clinical factors with cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Data from 226 patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) age was 54 (13.4) years, 73% were white, 60% were male, 37% had diabetes, 58% had an education level of college or above, and the mean (SD) time since kidney transplant was 3.4 (4.1) years. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was 58.0%. Multivariable linear regression demonstrated that older age, male gender and absence of diabetes were associated with lower MoCA scores (p < 0.01 for all). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was not associated with level of cognition. The logistic regression analysis confirmed the association of older age with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment is common in prevalent kidney transplant recipients, at a younger age compared to general population, and is associated with certain demographic variables, but not level of eGFR.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".