MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319769486 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100613

Cognitive Impairment, Frailty, and Adverse Outcomes Among Prevalent Hemodialysis Recipients: Results From a Large Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom

2023· article· en· W4319769486 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham Charity
KeywordsHemodialysisProspective cohort studyMedicineCohortCognitive impairmentCohort studyAdverse effectGerontologyCognitionDemographyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale & ObjectiveFrailty and cognitive impairment are common in hemodialysis recipients and have been associated with high mortality. There is considerable heterogeneity in frailty reporting, with little comparison between commonly used frailty tools and little exploration of the interplay between cognition and frailty. The aims were to explore the relationship between frailty scores and cognition and their associations with hospitalization and mortality.Study DesignProspective cohort studySetting & PopulationPrevalent hemodialysis recipients linked to national datasets for hospitalization and mortality.PredictorsMontreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index (FI), Edmonton Frailty Scale, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) were performed at baseline. Cognitive impairment was defined as MoCA scores of <26, or <21 in dexterity impairment, <18 in visual impairment.OutcomesMortality, hospitalization.Analytical ApproachCox proportional hazards model for mortality, censored for end of follow-up. Negative binomial regression for admission rates, censored for death/end of follow-up.ResultsIn total, 448 participants were recruited with valid MoCAs and followed up for a median of 685 days. There were 103 (23%) deaths and 1,120 admissions of at least one night. Cognitive impairment was identified in 346 (77.2%) participants. Increasing frailty by all definitions was associated with poorer cognition. Cognition was not associated with mortality (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03; P = 0.41) or hospitalization (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = 0.39) on multivariable analyses. There were interactions between MoCA scores and increasing frailty by FI (P = 0.002) and Clinical Frailty Scale (P = 0.005); admissions were highest when both MoCA and frailty scores were high, and when both scores were low.LimitationsAs frailty is a dynamic state, a single cross-sectional assessment may not accurately reflect its year-to-year variability. In addition, these findings are in maintenance dialysis and may not be transferable to incident hemodialysis. There were small variations in application of frailty tool criteria from other studies, which may have influenced the results.ConclusionsCognitive impairment is highly prevalent in this hemodialysis cohort. The interaction between cognition and frailty on rates of admission suggests the MoCA offers value in identifying higher risk hemodialysis populations with both high and low degrees of frailty. Frailty and cognitive impairment are common in hemodialysis recipients and have been associated with high mortality. There is considerable heterogeneity in frailty reporting, with little comparison between commonly used frailty tools and little exploration of the interplay between cognition and frailty. The aims were to explore the relationship between frailty scores and cognition and their associations with hospitalization and mortality. Prospective cohort study Prevalent hemodialysis recipients linked to national datasets for hospitalization and mortality. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index (FI), Edmonton Frailty Scale, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) were performed at baseline. Cognitive impairment was defined as MoCA scores of <26, or <21 in dexterity impairment, <18 in visual impairment. Mortality, hospitalization. Cox proportional hazards model for mortality, censored for end of follow-up. Negative binomial regression for admission rates, censored for death/end of follow-up. In total, 448 participants were recruited with valid MoCAs and followed up for a median of 685 days. There were 103 (23%) deaths and 1,120 admissions of at least one night. Cognitive impairment was identified in 346 (77.2%) participants. Increasing frailty by all definitions was associated with poorer cognition. Cognition was not associated with mortality (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03; P = 0.41) or hospitalization (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = 0.39) on multivariable analyses. There were interactions between MoCA scores and increasing frailty by FI (P = 0.002) and Clinical Frailty Scale (P = 0.005); admissions were highest when both MoCA and frailty scores were high, and when both scores were low. As frailty is a dynamic state, a single cross-sectional assessment may not accurately reflect its year-to-year variability. In addition, these findings are in maintenance dialysis and may not be transferable to incident hemodialysis. There were small variations in application of frailty tool criteria from other studies, which may have influenced the results. Cognitive impairment is highly prevalent in this hemodialysis cohort. The interaction between cognition and frailty on rates of admission suggests the MoCA offers value in identifying higher risk hemodialysis populations with both high and low degrees of frailty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.295 · 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