Supplementary Material for: Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Cognitive Impairment in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive impairment (CI) is common in patients with CKD or diabetes mellitus (DM). However, the relevance between DM and CI in diabetic patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) has not been clearly established. This study aimed to explore the role of DM in CI, the association of glycemic control with CI, and clinical outcomes of CI in diabetic PD patients. Methods: Continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) patients followed up in our PD center between 2014 and 2016 were enrolled. The participants were followed until an endpoint was reached or December 2017. Demographic data and clinical characteristics were collected, and laboratory parameters were measured. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to evaluate global cognitive function, and a score of <26 was considered to indicate CI. A propensity score matching according to age, gender, and mean arterial pressure was conducted between the DM and non-DM groups. Results: A total of 913 CAPD patients were enrolled, of whom 186 (20.4%) had diabetes. After appropriate matching, 175 patients in the DM group and 270 patients in the non-DM group were included. Patients with diabetes had a higher prevalence of CI and lower scores for visuospatial/executive function, naming, language, delayed recall, and orientation. Higher HbA1c (odds ratio [OR], 1.547; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.013–2.362) and cardiovascular disease (CVD; OR, 2.926; 95% CI, 1.139–7.516) significantly correlated with a risk of CI in diabetic patients. During a median of 26.0 (interquartile range 13.5–35.6) months of follow-up, diabetic patients with CI demonstrated a significantly lower survival rate than those without CI, and CI was an independent risk factor for mortality after adjustment (hazard ratio, 7.224; 95% CI, 1.694–30.806). However, they did not show worse technique survival or higher peritonitis rate than patients without CI. Conclusions: HbA1c and CVD are independent risk factors for CI in diabetic patients undergoing CAPD, and CI is independently associated with a higher risk of mortality.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.670 | 0.093 |
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".