MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221031188 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.719208

Cognitive Impairment Early After Initiating Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Cross Sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4221031188 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Schorr, Mariah Zalitach, Cindy House, Janice Gomes, Conor J. Wild, Fabio R. Salerno, Christopher W. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityImpactMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionHemodialysisCohortMedicinePopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Verbal reasoningVerbal memoryDialysisCross-sectional studyPsychological interventionPediatricsPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Abnormalities in cognitive function are almost universal in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) and are associated with worse quality of life, impaired decision making, increased healthcare utilization and mortality. While cognitive impairment in the HD population is increasingly recognized, it is unclear how quickly it develops after starting HD. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of a cohort of low dialysis vintage HD patients (<12 months). We used the validated Cambridge Brain Science (CBS) battery of web-based tests to evaluate cognition compared to age- and sex matched controls across three cognitive domains: verbal processing, reasoning and short-term memory. Results: Forty-nine HD patients were included in this study; 43 completed the full battery of tests. The average scores for HD patients were consistently below the age and sex-matched controls. Fifty-five percent of HD patients had cognitive impairment in verbal skills, 43% in reasoning and 18% in short-term memory. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of CI evident early after starting HD, with the largest deficits seen in reasoning and verbal processing. These deficits may be attributable to the HD treatment itself. Further studies are needed to characterize the natural history of CI in this patient population and to test interventions aimed at preventing or slowing its progression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207