Comparison of brain gray matter volume changes in peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients with chronic kidney disease: a VBM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".