The quality of life and comfort levels of hemodialysis patients with constipation: A descriptive and <scp>cross‐sectional</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to determine the constipation-related quality of life, bowel habits, and comfort levels of constipated hemodialysis patients. It is known that the prevalence of constipation is high in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional and correlational study. The study included 164 hemodialysis patients who were determined to have constipation by examining the constipation statuses of 385 patients based on the Rome-IV criteria. The study was reported according to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology Declaration. FINDINGS: It was determined that as the constipation-related quality of life of the patients increased, their comfort levels also increased. Constipation-related quality of life increased in parallel with an increasing Bristol Stool Scale (BSS) score and an increasing number of bowel movements. The BSS scores of the patients were found to have a significant positive correlation with the patients' bowel movement frequencies and a significant negative correlation with their constipation frequencies. There was a negative correlation between years of dialysis and bowel movement frequencies. The presence of a previous gastrointestinal system complaint, the presence of an impact of constipation on the patient's dialysis session, and comfort levels were determined to be significant predictors of constipation-related quality of life that explained 26.3% of the total variance in constipation-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: In patients receiving hemodialysis treatment, constipation is an important and frequently encountered problem. Constipation leads to a reduction in quality of life and hemodialysis-related comfort.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".