The Impact of Intradialytic Cognitive and Physical Training Program on the Physical and Cognitive Abilities in End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients: A Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hemodialysis (HD) patients have lower cognitive functioning and reduced physical fitness than age-matched healthy individuals. Clinicians typically do not recognize the declining cognitive performance in these patients; therefore, cognitive impairment is greatly underestimated and not appropriately treated. This study aimed to evaluate the impact on cognitive function of combining cognitive training with physical exercise and physical performance in HD patients. Methods: Using a randomized, single-blinded control design, forty-four HD patients were recruited and randomly assigned to either an intradialytic physical exercise and cognitive training program (EXP group; n = 22; 54% male; 65.7 ± 9.7 years; 77.1 ± 21.9 kg; body mass index 26.8 ± 6.0) or a standard care control group (CON group; n = 21; 77% male; 67.2 ± 12.5 years; 74.2 ± 14.3 kg; body mass index 25.9 ± 3.8). The EXP group performed intradialytic cycling and cognitive training three days per week for 12 weeks. Study outcomes were assessed by the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), 10-repetition sit-to-stand test (10-STS), handgrip strength test (HGS), and stork balance test. Results: The results showed a significant time*group interaction effect for SDMT (p < 0.001; η2 = 0.267) and MoCA (p < 0.001; η2 = 0.266). Moreover, no significant interaction was observed for 10-STS, HGS, and stork balance test (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that incorporating intradialytic cognitive and physical exercise training could help to improve the functional status of HD patients. The innovative, nonpharmacological, bimodal intervention is cost-effective, safe, and easy to implement during the intradialytic period and offers a potential impact on patients’ quality of life and well-being.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".