WCN25-2257 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIETARY INTERVENTION IN ALLEVIATING DEPRESSION IN PATIENTS ON MAINTENANCE HEMODIALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
after starting treatment to accept one additional treatment per week, and a 14% survival benefit two years after starting treatment to prevent a halving of their capability.No differences in the trade-offs made by patients and their family members reached the threshold for statistical significance (Table 2).Conclusions: Stated preferences indicated participants favoured higher survival probabilities, but only if their capability was preserved and the frequency of care was acceptable.Location of care did not appear to be valued.We found no evidence to support our hypothesis that family members would make quantitatively different trade-offs from patients.Findings thus far do not support the concept that family members favour more active treatments because of stronger relative preferences for survival.Analyses accounting for clinical and sociodemographic factors are underway to examine whether subgroups of patients, family members, or dyads exhibit different preferencesthis may unveil patterns indecipherable in these 'average' findings.We will also be able to compare the preferences of this patient group with approximately 200 patient participants who did not recruit a family member.Further mixed-methods research will explore if and how preferences change with time and disease progression, and how stated preferences relate to treatment choice.I have no potential conflict of interest to disclose.I did not use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".