Comparison of Gastrointestinal Symptoms between Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis and Healthy Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) complain of many gastrointestinal (GI) problems. The goal of the current study was to compare the prevalence of GI disorders in a relatively large group of patients with ESRD with healthy participants. Methods: In a matched case-control study, 597 patients undergoing hemodialysis and 740 healthy participants were investigated. All subjects were asked to complete Rome III questionnaire, including five modules to evaluate GI disorders. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression questionnaire, as well as the 12-general health questionnaire for psychological disorders assessment, were used. Results: Our results showed that in patients undergoing hemodialysis, the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (OR=1.75), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (OR=1.55), and dyspepsia (OR=3.39) was significantly higher than in healthy control participants, while no significant difference was found in terms of constipation (OR=0.88). The association remained significant for dyspepsia and IBS even after controlling for psychological disorders as important potential confounding variables. On the other hand, adjustment for psychological disorders led to an insignificant association between hemodialysis and GERD. Surprisingly a significant relationship was observed between constipation and hemodialysis after adjustment for mentioned psychological factors. Conclusion: Our results showed that there was a significant relationship between hemodialysis and some GI complaints such as IBS, dyspepsia, GERD, and bloating. Psychological disorders only influence GERD prevalence in patients undergoing hemodialysis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".