The comparison of cognitive function and risk of dementia in CKD patients under peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: Cognitive functions (CF) decline has been reported in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. However, the influence of dialysis modalities on CF has not been investigated systematically. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library and unpublished database Clinicaltrials.gov to identify the studies comparing the cognitive functions or risk of dementia between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). After data extraction, quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed. RESULTS: After study inclusion, totally 15 cohort or cross-sectional studies were included, comparing the cognitive functions using neuropsychological tests and covering the executive function, memory, orientation, attention, etc. By qualitative analysis, it showed that more studies are inclined to PD compared with HD with better cognitive functions. By quantitative analysis, it showed that PD showed better performance in the tests of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), stroop interference test and exhibited lower risk of dementia compared with HD. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we draw preliminary conclusion that patients treated with PD had better cognitive functions and lower dementia risk compared with patients with HD. Still more large-scale and well-conducted prospective cohort studies are needed to draw more convincing conclusions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".