Who should make the decision for renal replacement therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to evaluate cognitive functions in Stage 4 and 5 CKD patients using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale, which objectively assesses cognitive dysfunction and various cognitive functions, and to compare them with a control group with normal kidney functions. METHODS: All participants in our case-control study were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Test, and total scores, subscale scores, and the presence of cognitive dysfunction were recorded. RESULTS: When the groups were compared in terms of cognitive dysfunction (CD), 12.9% of the control group and 37.1% of the case group were found to have CD, which was statistically significant. When the groups were compared in terms of data and scale scores, the visual construction subscale score, naming, delayed recall subscale score, and total MoCA score were found to be significantly lower in the case group compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to use the MoCA test with the correct reference range. The significant impairment observed in the cognitive functions of patients with advanced-stage CKD in our study suggests that the decision for renal replacement therapy should not be made by the patient alone, as it may be incorrect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".