Postdialysis recovery time is extended in patients with greater self‐reported depression screening questionnaire scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most patients take time to recover after a hemodialysis (HD) session. It has been suggested that recovery time is associated with intradialytic hypotension and rapid solute clearances. Other studies have reported a linkage to depression. We investigated the association between recovery time and intradialytic hypotension and depression. METHODS: In five UK HD units, we screened for depressive symptoms using the Beck depression inventory-II, Patient Health Questionnaire, and recorded sessional blood pressures and Kt/Vurea. FINDINGS: Seven hundred and one HD patients were studied; 63.6% male, mean age 64.1 ± 16.6 years, 33.5% diabetic. About 24.1% recovered in <1 hour, 27% 1-4 hours, 15.4% 4-8 hours, 10.7% 8-12 hours, and 22.8% after 12 hours. Systolic blood pressure fell by ≥20 mmHg in 30.9% postdialysis, and to <100 mmHg in 7.6%. In multivariate analysis, patients with recovery times >1 hour were more likely to be female, have high self-reported Beck depression inventory-II scores, a past medical history of depression, and be living without a partner. Longer recovery times were also associated with very low postdialysis systolic blood pressures (<100 mmHg), and higher body weight. However, the model predicted only 18% of the variation in recovery times. We found no association between recovery times and short-term mortality risk. DISCUSSION: Prolonged postdialysis recovery times are associated with higher self-reported depression scores, and very low postdialysis blood pressure. Future studies investigating changes in dialysis practice and recovery times will need to target strategies to prevent intradialytic hypotension and adjust for patient psychological status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".