Difficulty in activities of daily living and falls in patients undergoing hemodialysis: A cross‐sectional study with nondialysis controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Impaired activities of daily living (ADL) and falls are important issues in hemodialysis patients. So far, information is limited regarding self-reported difficulty with ADL (ADL difficulty) in hemodialysis patients. Then, we compared the degree of ADL difficulty and the prevalence of fallers between hemodialysis patients and a nondialyzed control group. Also, the possible association between ADL difficulty and falls was examined. METHODS: This was a single center, cross-sectional study including two groups of outpatients aged 50 years or older; 209 prevalent hemodialysis patients, and 139 nonrenal patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia (control group). ADL difficulty score was evaluated by a 48-item questionnaire including six subscales of ADLs namely locomotion, eating, toileting, dressing, bathing, and grooming. Experience of falls in the previous year period was examined by a questionnaire. FINDINGS: The two groups did not differ significantly in age or sex. The hemodialysis group had a higher median (interquartile range) total score of ADL difficulty than the control group [10 (2-39) vs. 2 (0-10); p < 0.001] and a higher prevalence of fallers (73/209, 34.9% vs. 16/139, 11.5%; p < 0.001). In multivariable-adjusted linear regression analyses, history of falls was independently associated with a higher score of ADL difficulty for total or each of the six subscales. DISCUSSION: The hemodialysis patients had a significantly higher ADL difficulty and a higher prevalence of fallers than the control group. Self-reported ADL difficulty and falls were closely linked regardless of the patient group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".