MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393871074 · doi:10.5530/ijopp.17.2.23

To Assess the Level of Cognitive Impairment in Hemodialysis Patient Using MoCA Scale: A Prospective Interventional Study

2024· article· en· W4393871074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malarvizhi Palanivel, Monisha Saravanan, Monika Sivakumar, Megasree Harish

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentHemodialysisCognitive impairmentCognitionScale (ratio)Prospective cohort studyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Aim: To use the MoCA scale to measure the degree of cognitive decline in haemodialysis patients and to enhance cognitive function through training. Materials and Methods: Prospective interventional researches were carried out for a duration of 6 months. 57 haemodialysis patients were selected for the study. The decline in cognitive function was assessed using MoCA scale, and cognitive training was provided to improve cognition. Results: By observing the control and treatment groups without and with provision of cognitive training, the treatment group shows an improvement in the cognitive function from 57.33% to 63.07% and control group shows decline in cognitive function from 57.36% to 52.64%. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how cognitive training can stop cognitive aging. Therefore, starting cognitive training as soon as haemodialysis begins can reduce the likelihood of cognitive loss. Keywords: Haemodialysis, Cognitive impairment, MoCA scale, Cognitive training.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Pharmacy PracticeSame topicHealthcare Quality and SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207