A Study Describing Patients’ Perspectives on Cognitive Function Screening During Hemodialysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routine screening of cognitive function in patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) is recommended, yet rarely it happens. This study sought to identify barriers to cognitive function screening for patients with ESKD receiving in-center hemodialysis. To ascertain their perceptions of cognitive function screening, 100 patients aged 50 years and older (48% female, 49% Black/African-American) from seven hemodialysis centers participated in structured interviews after completing the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Geriatric Depression Scale. Participants rated the screening experience favorably, indicating cognitive function screening is acceptable to patients receiving hemodialysis. The level of cognitive impairment was the only factor significantly associated with screening evaluation scores, with participants with scores indicating mild or moderate impairment evaluating screening less favorably than those with normal cognitive function scores. Next steps include identifying systems level barriers and establishing appropriate follow up for patients with abnormal screening results.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it