A pilot study of thiamine and folic acid in hemodialysis patients with cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of thiamine and folic acid supplementation on the improvement of the cognitive function in patients with maintenance hemodialysis. Methods: In the present study, we randomly assigned patients undergoing hemodialysis who had the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score lower than 26 to treatment group (n=25, thiamine 90mg/day combined with folic acid 30mg/day) or control group (n=25, nonintervention). All subjects were followed up for 96 weeks. The primary outcome was the improvement of the MoCA score. The secondary outcomes included homocysteine level, survival and safety. Results: Patients in treatment group had an increase of the MoCA score from 21.95±3.81 at baseline to 25.68±1.96 at week 96 (P<0.001, primary outcome), as compared with the MoCA score from 20.69±3.40 to 19.62±3.58 in control group. Thiamine combined with folic acid treatment also resulted in lower level of serum homocysteine in treatment group compare with control group at week 96 (P<0.05, secondary outcome). 3 patients and 9 patients died during follow-up period in treatment and control group respectively (P=0.048). The proportion of adverse events in treatment group was significantly lower than that in control group. Conclusion: Hemodialysis patients with cognitive impairment treated with thiamine and folic acid had a significant improvement in MoCA score. Trial registration: Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR-IPR-17012210.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".