Kidney Disease-Specific Quality of Life among Patients on Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QoL) of hemodialysis patients can be examined in two aspects: kidney-specific quality of life and general quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To determine the QoL among patients undergoing hemodialysis, to assess patients' QoL on hemodialysis, and to determine the factors associated with QoL among hemodialysis patients in Oman. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out with 205 patients to measure the QoL across various demographic and clinical variables in Oman. The Arabic version of the KDQOL-SFtool was used to collect data from patients undergoing hemodialysis to give QoL quantitative measures. RESULTS: The physical-QoL was 45.7 (95% CI, 44.3, 47.0), which is less than half that of a healthy human. The emotional-QoL is 53.33 (95% CI, 51.1, 55.5), slightly more than half in a healthy human-QoL. The difference between physical and emotional-QoL scores is -7.66 (95% CI, -10.3, -5.1), showing that physical QoL is significantly less than emotional-QoL. The overall general QoL score was 49.5 (95% CI, 47.8, 51.2), half the QoL score of a healthy human. Younger patients are also more likely to experience emotional problems compared with older patients. Patients with 5-8 mg/l levels of serum creatinine have lower emotional wellbeing. People on low incomes experienced social difficulties, while the maximum burden was found in physical activities and minimum social function. CONCLUSION: Both physical (45.7) and emotional (53.3) QoL scores in dialysis patients are nearly half those of an average human. Hence, there is a poor QoL among dialysis patients like other studies, and therefore, further improvement of renal rehabilitation in dialysis patients is warranted to improve patients' QoL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".