MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405577836 · doi:10.1186/s12882-024-03883-6

Evaluation of effect of cooled haemodialysis on cognition in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ECHECKED) feasibility randomised controlled trial results

2024· article· en· W4405577836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Indranil Dasgupta, Aghogho Odudu, Jyoti Baharani, Niall Fergusson, Helen Griffiths, John Harrison, Awais Hameed, Paul Maruff, Louise Ryan, G. Neil Thomas, Gavin L. Woodhall, George Tadros

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyRandomized controlled trialEnd stage renal diseaseInternal medicineEnd-stage kidney diseaseKidney diseaseCognitionStage (stratigraphy)DiseaseIntensive care medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in haemodialysis patients with no known beneficial interventions. Cooler dialysate slows brain white-matter changes, but its effect on cognition is unknown. This feasibility trial was performed to inform a fully-powered, randomised trial to assess this. METHODS: We aimed to randomise (1:1) 90 haemodialysis patients to this double-blinded, randomised controlled feasibility trial to standard care (dialysate-temperature 36.5 °C) or intervention (35 °C). Eligible patients were adult chronic haemodialysis recipients with no established diagnosis of dementia or psychiatric disease. The primary outcome was change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score at 12-months. Secondary outcomes included recruitment and attrition rates, reasons for non-recruitment, intradialytic hypotension, depression, patient burden, computerised cognition test battery, and quality of life. FINDINGS: Of 334 patients screened, 160 were eligible. 99 declined mainly for the extra non-dialysis day study visits. Sixty-one patients consented, 43 randomised - 20 in standard care, 23 in intervention arms; 13 withdrew for non-dialysis day visits and 5 without reason before randomisation. 27 patients (12 standard care, 15 intervention) completed the trial - 5 died, 1 transplanted, 4 withdrew consent, and 6 could not attend due to the pandemic. Low temperature dialysis was well tolerated. There was no difference in change in MoCA from baseline to 12 months between the standard and intervention arms; 1.0 (-2.8-3.0, p = 0.755) and - 2.0 (-1.0 - -4.0, p = 0.047) respectively. There were no differences between groups on any secondary measures. There were no significant adverse events reported. DISCUSSION: The trial was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic contributing to an attrition rate of 27%. The non-dialysis day research visits were mainly responsible for low recruitment and consent withdrawal. There are several learning points, described in the article, which will inform design of definitive trials in this area in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03645733. Registration date 24/08/2018.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207