Cognitive impairment and its risk factors in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence and risk factors of cognitive impairment （CI） in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis （CAPD）.MethodsFrom August 1， 2020 to July 31， 2021， a total of 323 CAPD patients were recruited. Cognitive functions were evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale （MoCA） and CI was defined as MoCA <26 points. The independent risk factors for CI were selected by LASSO and Logistic regressions.ResultsAmong them， 208（64.4%） fulfilled the criteria for CI. LASSO and Logistic regressions indicated that age （OR=1.089， 95%CI 1.058-1.211， P<0.001）， history of diabetes mellitus （OR=2.530， 95%CI 1.256-5.095， P=0.009）， education level， serum uric acid （OR=1.005， 95%CI 1.002-1.007， P=0.002） and total cholesterol （OR=1.836， 95%CI 1.310-2.572， P<0.001） were independent risk factors for CI. Low density lipoprotein （OR=0.973， 95%CI 0.948-0.998， P=0.043） and marital status （OR=0.161， 95%CI 0.047-0.548， P=0.002） were independent protective factors for CI in CAPD patients.ConclusionCAPD patients have a high incidence of CI. Age， history of diabetes mellitus， education level， serum uric acid and total cholesterol are independent risk factors for CI. Low density lipoprotein and marital status are independent protective factors for CI in CAPD patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".