Exploring the impact of cognitive impairments on treatment compliance and quality of life in patients with Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of cognitive impairments on treatment compliance and quality of life in patients with Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD). A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with CAPD at the Department of Nephrology, Lianshui People's Hospital from October 2021 to May 2022. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the End-Stage Renal Disease Adherence Questionnaire was used to evaluate treatment compliance. Quality of life was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Scores from all the questionnaires and demographic data were recorded. A total of 98 patients were enrolled, and the prevalence of cognitive impairment among CAPD patients was 69.39% (MoCA score < 26). Patients were divided into 2 groups: one group with normal cognitive function (MoCA score ≥ 26) and the other with cognitive impairments. There were statistically significant differences in age, dialysis age, education, urea clearance index, history of high blood pressure, and diabetes between the 2 groups (all P < .05). Patients with cognitive impairments had lower compliance levels in terms of diet fluid restriction, medication therapeutic regimens, and dialysis regimen (all P < .05). Patients with cognitive impairments also had lower quality of life scores in the dimensions of physical function, general health, social function, emotional function, and mental health (all P < .05). Cognitive impairment appears to be common among CAPD patients and may adversely affect both their treatment adherence and overall quality of life. A more comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms necessitates further study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".