The effects of death anxiety on diet‐fluid restriction non‐adherence in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The study was performed to examine the effects of death anxiety on diet-fluid restriction non-adherence in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: This descriptive, cross-sectional, and correlational study was performed with 118 hemodialysis patients who received treatment in the dialysis unit of a university hospital and a state hospital in Elazığ, eastern Turkey. The study data were obtained with the "Descriptive Data Form", "Death Anxiety Scale", and "Dietary and Fluid Restriction Non-Adherence Scale". FINDINGS: The average Death Anxiety Scale total score of the patients was 10.00 ± 4.75. The "Duration of non-adherence with diet" mean score was 1.66 ± 1.70, "Degree of non-adherence with diet" mean score was 1.24 ± 1.19, "Duration of non-adherence with fluid restriction" mean score was 1.61 ± 1.71, and "Degree of non-adherence with fluid restriction" mean score was 1.16 ± 1.13. The independent variable Death Anxiety Scale significantly and negatively affected the dependent variable "Duration of non-adherence with diet", "Degree of non-adherence with diet", "Duration of non-adherence with fluid restriction", and "Degree of non-adherence with fluid restriction". DISCUSSION: Hemodialysis patients face serious death anxiety, their degree of non-adherence with diet-fluid restriction was low as death anxiety scores increased, and the degree of non-adherence with diet-fluid restriction decreased.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".