Cognitive Impairment is Associated with Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cognitive impairment in hemodialysis patients is notably high. In previous studises performed in the general population, cognitive impairment has been associated with increased mortality. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the relationship between global cognitive function tested by a short screening instrument and mortality in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: Cognitive testing was performed in 242 maintenance hemodialysis patients under standardized conditions at baseline using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).Cognitive impairment was defined as a MoCA test score ≤24 points, as published previously. All-cause mortality was monitored during a median follow-up of 3.54 years. Kaplan-Meier plot and Cox regression model adjusted for known risk factors for mortality in hemodialysis patients were used to examine a possible association between global cognitive function and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A MoCA test score ≤24 points resulted in a significant almost 3-fold higher hazard for all-cause mortality (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.812; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.683-4.698; p < 0.001). After adjustment, this association was attenuated but remained significant (adjusted HR: 1.749; 95% CI: 1.007-3.038; p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Impairment of global cognitive function measured by a short screening instrument was identified for the first time as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. Thus, implementing the MoCA test in clinical routine could contribute to a better risk stratification of this patient population.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".