Screening of Cognitive Impairment in the Dialysis Population: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment in end-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis is increasingly common. This study aimed to review the practice of screening and to evaluate the evidence on cognitive impairment prevalence in this population. METHODS: This scoping review of studies summarises the evidence on cognitive impairment in dialysis populations. The search included the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases for English-language articles published between 2000 and 2015. A total of 46 articles were reviewed. RESULTS: The studies were of prospective observational design, with the majority conducted in the haemodialysis population. The reported prevalence of cognitive impairment ranged from 6.6 to 51%. Three screening tools were consistently used. CONCLUSION: While cognitive impairment is recognised in the dialysis population, there is paucity of screening data. The design of prospective comparisons ideally includes established screening instruments, particularly the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, to determine the optimal results for this population. Translation of established screening tools to increase the inclusion of people from other cultural and language groups is required. Regular screening can enhance the timing to introduce home-based care support and advance care planning discussions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".