Prediction model for cognitive impairment in maintenance hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the risk factors for cognitive impairment in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) and construct a predictive model for cognitive impairment. METHODS: A total of 146 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing MHD were recruited at our hospital between December 2021 and April 2022. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and scores of < 26 were considered indicative of cognitive impairment. Risk factors were identified using a multivariate logistic regression model, and a receiver operating characteristic curve was applied to construct the prediction model. Cognitive impairment risk was categorized using a multifactorial prediction model based on the weight of evidence. RESULTS: 46 patients with cognitive impairment were identified, with a prevalence of 31.5% in ESRD patients undergoing MHD. Multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that the following factors were associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment in patients undergoing MHD: aged 55.0-64.0 years (OR:6.24; 95%CI:1.81-21.48; P = 0.001), aged 65.0-74.0 years (OR:16.10; 95%CI:4.03-64.37; P < 0.001), aged ≥ 75.0 years (OR:90.22; 95%CI:16.86-482.86; P < 0.001), duration of dialysis ≥ 5 years (OR:3.99; 95%CI:1.58-10.04; P = 0.003), and current smoker (OR:4.61; 95%CI:1.46-14.57; P = 0.009). The predictive value of the constructed model based on the aforementioned factors for cognitive impairment was 84% (95%CI,77-91%). The prevalence of cognitive impairment for patients at low, moderately low, moderately high, and high risk was 0% (95%CI:0-17%), 10% (95%CI:3-22%), 32% (95%CI:16-52%), and 65% (95%CI:50-78%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study constructed a multifactorial prediction model with a high predictive value for cognitive impairment in patients with ESRD undergoing MHD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".