P1508COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT A RISK FACTOR FOR NON ADHERENCE TO MEDICAL MANAGEMENT AMONG PATIENTS ON MAINTENANCE HEMODIALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at substantially higher risk for developing cognitive impairment (CI) compared with the general population. Subtle changes can impact engagement with healthcare, comprehension, decision-making, and medication adherence. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test was reported to represent a suitable cognitive screening tool for hemodialysis patients. Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of CI in CKD patients undergoing hemodialysis, socio-demographic and patient-related variables affecting CI and relationship with medical adherence. Method Out of 65 patients in the HD unit, 58 patients (mean age 59.16±10.61 years old and meantime in therapy 6.93±5.03 years) accepted to participate in the study. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale was administered to patients. Patients with a MoCA global score 24/30 were considered cognitively impaired. Descriptive analysis was done for the socio-demographic and clinical variables. Results The mean total MoCA score for all the patients were 22.77679±3.8. Thirty seven patient 63.7% were evaluated with CI where 67.5 % with Mild CI (MCI) and 32.5% with severe CI (SCI) under 20 points). MoCA subscale analysis revealed that the mean score for visuospatial/executive domain and attention were the lowest with 5.38±1.3 /8max and 2.82±1.67/6 max and scores for orientation were the highest 5.94±0.59/6 max. MCI was related to vintage to dialysis (p < .00001) and education years (p<0.05) but not with age (p>0.05) and gender (p>0.05) where severe CI was related to age and comorbidity ( p<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively. We found a strong association between low scores and medical adherence (p<0.001). Conclusion: In hemodialysis, we have a relatively high prevalence of CI and screening for impairment should be considered in all adults with ESRD. Older age, vintage on dialysis, and comorbidity were associated with lower scores. The visuospatial/executive domain and attention were mostly affected. The association between low scores and medical adherence show a high risk for this group of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".