GENÇ ERİŞKİN HEMODİYALİZ HASTALARINDA KIRILGANLIK VE KOGNİTİF BOZUKLUK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<!--block-->Objective: Frailty is a definition used in relation to geriatric populations, indicating physical inactivity and susceptibility to disease. Studies investigating frailty in hemodialysis (HD) patients mostly include the elderly. Cognitive impairment is overlooked in HD patients. This study aims to investigate associations between frailty and cognitive impairment in young-adult HD patients. Methods: The study included 102 HD patients aged 18-65 years old. Frailty was evaluated using the clinical frailty index (CFI) and cognition was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). A CFI value between 5 and 7 was defined as frail, and 4-7 was defined as vulnerable-or-frail. An MoCA value <24/30 was determined as cognitive impairment. Results: Mean patient age was 48.3±12.4 years. Vulnerable-or-frail patients accounted for 26.7%, frailty, 12.7%. Frequency of cognitive impairment was 69.6%. The likelihood of Frailty and being vulnerable-or-frail were increased in patients with cognitive impairment compared with those without cognitive impairment (22.4%; 0.0% p=0,011 and 57.7%; 3,3% p<0,001). CFI and MoCA were negatively correlated (-r=0,607, p<0.001), which was still significant after adjusting for age, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (p=0.012). Conclusion: This study showed that frailty may be associated with cognitive impairment in young-adult HD patients. Determining frail HD patients may necessitate dealing with inactivity, comorbidities and also 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".