Relationship between dialysis adequacy and cognitive function in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of cognitive impairment is extremely high in dialysis patients, and it has been hypothesized that low urea clearance has an impact on cognitive impairment. However, several other studies conducted in the era of high-flux dialysis have not shown an association between lower Kt/V and poorer cognitive function. Therefore, studies that directly examine the relationship between dialysis adequacy and cognitive function in hemodialysis patients are essential. The present study aimed to investigate the cognitive functions of hemodialysis patients and their relationship with dialysis adequacy. Methods. This cross-sectional observational study included 100 patients and 100 healthy volunteers. Dialysis adequacy was assessed by the Kt/V ratio in the previous month. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) were used to assess cognitive function. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the significant association between the cognitive assessments and the independent variables (Kt/V, age, education, hemoglobin, and albumin). Results. There were no significant differences between patients and controls in age and sex. Patients had a mean Kt/V ratio of 1.52±0.29. MMSE, MoCA, and CDT were lower in patients than in controls. There were strong positive correlations between MMSE and Kt/V (r = 0.81), MoCA and Kt/V (r = 0.84), CDT and Kt/V (r = 0.79). Conclusion. Cognitive functions in hemodialysis patients were significantly decreased compared with healthy controls and associated with dialysis adequacy. Dialysis adequacy should be questioned in patients with low cognitive function.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".