Nutritional Status and Sleep Quality in Adult Patients with CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sleep and appetite disorders share common mechanisms and have been shown to impact metabolic disorders in the general population. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often experience sleep disturbances, but whether these are associated with their nutritional status is unknown. We aimed to determine the relationship between measures of nutritional status and sleep quality in adult patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD. Methods: Cross-sectional cohort study including adult patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 ml/min/1.73m2 attending nephrologist consultations. Patients with amputations or metallic plates, diagnosed psychiatric disorders, and using medications with a direct effect on sleep were excluded. All patients responded to the Pittsburgh sleep quality questionnaire (PSQI) and underwent a full nutritional assessment including subjective global assessment (SGA), bioelectrical impedance, anthropometry, and 24-hour recall. Multivariate regression was used to analyze the associations between measures of nutritional status and sleep quality (Odd Ratios with 95% confidence intervals). Results: A total of 106 participants , median age 52 (38-66) years. Hypertension was present in 62% of participants and diabetes in 46%. The majority (75%) of participants presented poor sleep quality (PSQI ≥5), and a total of 35% were considered malnourished (SGA>1). Compared to well-nourished patients, malnourished patients were more likely higher systolic blood pressure, lower serum albumin, and lower eGFR, (p<0.05 for all). No significant differences in age, gender, comorbidities, or dietary energy intake were observed. Malnourished patients also reported higher PSQI scores (worse sleep quality, median score 10 vs 7, p <0.01). In multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, eGFR, energy intake, and comorbidities, the Odds of malnutrition increased by 18% (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33) for unit increase in PSQI). Conclusion: Most patients with non-dialysis dependent CKD reported poor sleep quality, and its severity was associated with the presence of malnutrition as assessed by SGA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".