SP686Evaluation of pain in patients undergoing hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: End stage renal disease is defined as loss of renal function requiring renal replacement therapy with any form of chronic dialysis or occasionally conservative management in the elderly or those with significant comorbidities. Pain is the one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with ESRD; it impairs their quality of life and is undertreated. METHODS: In our study, 328 patients undergoing routine hemodialysis treatment at three different outpatient hemodialysis units in Eskişehir,Turkey between October 2017 and May 2018 were evaluated. A McGill pain questionnaire was used to assess the nature, location, frequency, intensity and of pain. Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) pain scale was used for the evaluation of neuropathic pain. RESULTS: The Mean age was 65 ±12.5 years. The mean time on dialysis was 7.0±6.0 years.74.4% of the patients experienced pain. Neuropathic pain was seen in 151 patients and nociceptive pain was seen in 93 patients. In non-diabetic group, neuropathic pain was seen in 47.4% of patients. There was a direct positive relationship between the presence of residual urine and quality of life. Significant negative relation was found between the presence of residual urine and neuropathic pain. There was a negative correlation between Kt/V value and pain severity. There was negative correlation in severity of pain and the level of parathormone. Negative correlation in life quality was found in all parameters of patients with pain compared to those without pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicate high prevalence of pain in hemodyalisis patients. Pain in this population should be considered as an important health problem, and health professionals should prioritize clinical management and research in pain management to improve the quality of life of hemodialysis patients, and care should be taken to protect residual renal function.
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 | 0.001 | 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".