Pain Assessment in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pain is a common complaint among hemodialysis (HD) patients; however, most patients are not assessed for this aspect and are not sufficiently treated. In these patients, pain is reported to be associated with a range of parameters like increased depression and disrupted quality of life (QOL). Previously residual renal function (RRF) was not assessed for associations with pain. The primary aim of the study is to evaluate the pain frequency in the Turkish HD patient population. In addition, the type, origin, and severity of chronic pain, the pain treatment ratio, and the relationship between pain, QOL, and RRF were investigated during the study. Methods This study included 328 HD patients. Pain assessment used the McGill Pain Questionnaire and neuropathic pain assessment used the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) scale. The correlation of pain and quality of life was evaluated with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) quality of life scale. Results Of patients, 244 experienced pain (74.4%), and this pain had a neuropathic character in 61.8% of these patients. Patients with pain had a longer dialysis duration than those without pain (4.00 (2.00-8.00), 3.00 (2.00-4.75), p=0.01). The most common site of pain was the lower extremities. Pain was observed more often among females and with increasing age. Only 36.4% of patients used analgesics. The quality of life of patients with pain was found to be lower. The incidence of pain was higher among patients without RRF and had more neuropathic character. Conclusions Pain is a significant problem for the majority of HD patients and is not effectively managed. To increase the quality of life of patients, the care team should regularly question pain symptoms, and it should be treated effectively. In this context, RRF should be regularly monitored and efforts should be made to preserve it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".