A potential barrier to adherence? Memory for future intentions is impaired in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) has been associated with a range of cognitive deficits, including impaired retrospective memory and attention. Prospective memory (PM) is memory for future intentions, such as remembering to take medication on time. Prospective memory has not been examined in any ESRD patients; yet, the implications upon diet and medication management could potentially have detrimental effects on patient welfare. This is the first study to examine PM in ESRD patients being treated with hemodialysis (HD). METHODS: Hemodialysis patients (n = 18) were compared with age-matched and education-matched controls (n = 18) on a boardgame task that emulates a typical week of activities (i.e., grocery shopping, meetings with friends), requiring the participant to remember a series of upcoming tasks. Other measures were also examined, including general cognitive decline, measures of independent living, IQ, and mood. FINDINGS: Patients recalled significantly fewer upcoming events than the control group, suggesting an impairment of PM. No significant relationship was found between PM performance and any other measures, suggesting the difference between groups is likely due to the effects of ESRD, HD treatment, or some associated comorbidity. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to demonstrate a PM deficit in patients undergoing HD treatment. This finding contributes to the current knowledge of the cognitive profile of patients undergoing HD while also highlighting the implications that a PM deficit may have on patient quality of life. The finding may go some way to explaining variances in patients' ability to monitor and adhere to medication and dietary regimes and, ultimately, to live independently. The study also highlights the necessity of viewing treatment for ESRD as a holistic process to maximize patient well-being.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".