MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395671380 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2024.1394169

Comparison of brain gray matter volume changes in peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients with chronic kidney disease: a VBM study

2024· article· en· W4395671380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fenglin Xiao, Lili Zhou, Yan Li, Chaoyang Zhang, Ying Liu, Huan Yu, Xiaoping Li, Chunyu Wang, Xinxin Yin, Xin Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Municipal Health Commission
KeywordsMedicinePeritoneal dialysisHemodialysisKidney diseaseGray (unit)Internal medicineDialysisRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study aims to compare gray matter volume changes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) using voxel-based morphometry (VBM). Methods: A total of 27 PD patients, 25 HD patients, and 42 healthy controls were included. VBM analysis was performed, and cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA). The correlation between cognitive function and changes in brain gray matter volume was analyzed. Results: Both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients had partial gray matter volume reduction compared to the controls, but the affected brain regions were not uniform. The hemodialysis patients had greater volume reduction in certain brain regions than the PD patients. The MMSE and MoCA scores were positively correlated with gray matter volume changes. Conclusion: Different dialysis modalities cause damage to specific areas of the brain, which can be detected using VBM. VBM, combined with cognitive function assessment, can help detect structural brain changes and cognitive impairment in patients with different dialysis modalities. The comprehensive application of VBM in the field of neurological function deserves further exploration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207