Discrepancies between Perceived and Measured Cognition in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Implications for Clinical Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in kidney transplant (KT) recipients and affects quality of life, graft survival, morbidity, and mortality. Failure to identify patients with cognitive impairment can withhold appropriate and timely intervention. This study determines whether measured cognition with standard screening tools offers any advantage over perceived cognition in screening transplant patients for cognitive impairment. METHODS: Cognition was assessed in 157 KT recipients using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; measured cognition). In addition, transplant physicians and nurse coordinators were asked to rate transplant recipients' level of cognition after routine clinical interactions (perceived cognition). Physicians and nurses were blind to MoCA scores. Perceived cognition scores were compared to MoCA scores. RESULTS: Perceived cognition scores fairly correlated with MOCA scores (γ = 0.24, p = 0.001 for physicians and γ = 0.33, p < 0.0001 for nurses). Physician scores moderately correlated with nurses scores (κ = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Clinical perception had a low accuracy for identifying patients with cognitive impairment (sensitivity 66% for physicians, 65% for nurses), and those without cognitive impairment (specificity 67% for physicians, 76% for nurses). CONCLUSION: Clinical perception is inaccurate at detecting cognitive impairment in KT recipients. Objective tests should be considered to screen KT recipients for cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".