Cognitive interventions for adults with chronic kidney disease: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a common and frequently under-recognized complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although there is extensive literature on cognitive interventions that can ameliorate cognitive impairment or associated negative outcomes in the general literature, the breadth and characteristics of cognitive interventions that have been studied in people with CKD are currently unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe the literature on cognitive interventions for adults with CKD, including end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). METHODS: A scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology will be conducted. With assistance from an information specialist, we will search 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE [OVID], EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus) using search terms that represent the target population (CKD) and concept (cognition), and conduct backward citation searching for additional literature. Eligible sources will be primary research studies (quantitative or qualitative) that investigate any intervention targeting cognition in adults (≥ 18 years) with CKD or ESKD, including those treated with dialysis. We will extract data about characteristics of interventions (e.g., type, underlying theory, design, location, and provider), populations (e.g., stage of CKD, age, sex, and type of cognitive impairment), and studies (e.g., authors, location, design, and reported findings). Article screening and data extraction will be performed by two to three reviewers. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative syntheses to characterize the literature on cognitive interventions for people with CKD. DISCUSSION: This study will provide a comprehensive overview of the cognitive interventions that have been studied for people with CKD. It will help identify research gaps within this population (e.g., types of interventions that have yet to be investigated; best practices in cognition research that have not been implemented) and inform the direction of future research in this field.
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 | 0.080 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.014 |
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".