Joint association of serum sodium and frailty with mild cognitive impairment among hospitalized older adults with chronic diseases: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To examine the associations of serum sodium and frailty with the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among hospitalized older adults with chronic diseases. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 403 hospitalized older adults with chronic diseases. Serum sodium concentration was assessed by the ion-selective electrode method, frailty status was evaluated by the FRAIL scale, and MCI was determined by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations of serum sodium and frailty with MCI. Results: Participants with the lowest tertile of serum sodium had a higher risk of MCI than those in the middle tertile group (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.01-3.04). Below 143 mmol/L, the risk of MCI was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.03-1.84) for per 1 SD decrease in serum sodium. Compared with the robust group, frailty was significantly associated with an increased risk of MCI (OR = 3.94, 95% CI: 1.92-8.10). Moreover, in comparison with participants with the middle tertile of serum sodium and who were robust/prefrail, those with frailty and either the lowest (OR = 5.53, 95% CI: 2.08-14.67) or the highest tertile of serum sodium (OR = 3.48, 95% CI: 1.20-10.05) had higher risks of MCI. Conclusion: Both lower and higher serum sodium impose a significantly higher risk for MCI in older adults with frailty. This could inform the design of clinical trials and the development of guidelines and recommendations for correcting serum sodium and frailty in hospitalized older adults with chronic diseases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".