Addressing cognitive impairment in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Cognitive impairment (CI) is a critical complication in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, associated with decreased quality of life and increased hospitalization. Despite its significant impact, the prevalence, risk factors, and consequences of CI in PD patients are not well understood. We aimed to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of CI in PD patients. Methods We performed systematic reviews in OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases until February 2024 to identify cross-sectional and cohort studies on prevalence of CI (identified by cognitive assessment scales) in PD patients. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. A pooled meta-analysis of CI prevalence in PD and a subgroup analysis comparing the risk of CI between PD and non-PD settings were performed using a random-effects model. Results A total of 19 studies were identified, involving 2882 PD patients. The pooled prevalence of CI in PD patients was 47.7% (95%CI: 35.8–59.9%). CI in patients undergoing PD appears to be associated with older age, female gender, lower levels of education, and is linked to higher rates of hospitalization and peritonitis, compared to those without CI. However, it is not associated with increased mortality. Compared to hemodialysis, PD showed a trend toward a lower risk of CI (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39–1.03; P = .068). Conclusion CI is highly prevalent and associated with several adverse clinical outcomes in PD patients. These findings could contribute to facilitate the development of screening and early intervention strategies to reduce the burden of disease in this population.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".