The effects of cognitive impairment on the self-management ability and self-management behavior in patients of end stage renal disease with maintenance hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effects of cognitive impairment on the self-management ability and self-management behavior among the patients of end stage renal disease(ESRD) with maintenance hemodialysis(MHD). Methods 134 MHD patients were divided into the non cognitive impairment group(62 subjects) and cognitive impairment group(72 subjects) according to Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA)scores, to asses and analyze the level of hemodialysis knowledge, hemodialysis adherence, self-management ability and self-management behavior between the two groups. Results The rates of hemodialysis skipping behavior and the rates of hemodialysis shorting behavior in cognitive impairment group(respectively, 18.06%, 22.22%) were higher than that in non cognitive impairment group(respectively, 6.45%, 8.06%)with significant difference(χ2=4.0495, 5.0526, all P<0.05). The cognitive impairment group had significantly less total score(respectively, 16.62±1.99, 51.32±9.92, 56.99±8.3) in the level of hemodialysis knowledge, the self-management ability and the self-management behavior compared with the non cognitive impairment group(respectively, 18.48±2.03, 63.69±10.16, 78.54±10.28)(t=5.3448, 7.1172, 13.4140, all P<0.05). Conclusion Cognitive impairment can produce an effect on the level of hemodialysis knowledge and hemodialysis adherence.Cognitive impairment can also reduce the function of self-management ability and self-management behavior and make badly further effect on curative effect of hemodialysis. Key words: End stage renal disease; Hemodialysis; Cognitive impairment; Self-management
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".