Original Articles Pain, sleep disturbance and survival in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Patients ’ perception of pain during hemo-dialysis (HD) and at times between HD treatment and its association with survival have not been well studied in end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We evaluated the experience of pain during HD and at times when the patient was not receiving HD, and assessed possible associations of the per-ception of pain and sleep disturbance with patient survival. Methods. A total of 128 ESRD patients treated with HD completed questionnaires on psychosocial status, quality of life and sleep disorders. A modified McGill Pain question-naire was used to assess the nature, location, frequency, intensity and duration of pain both during and at times be-tween HD sessions. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was used to screen for sleep disturbances over a 30-day period. Results. Controlling for age, diabetes mellitus, serum al-bumin concentration and human immunodeficiency virus infection, there was a significant association between mortal-ity and both frequency and intensity of pain while patients were not on HD. There was no association between survival and duration of pain while off HD or any of the pain param-eters while patients were on HD. There was no association between survival and the presence of a sleep disorder. Conclusions. Pain perception while off HD may be of more importance to patients than pain during HD. The mechanisms underlying the association are unknown but may involve linkage of pain with severity of medical illness or the generation of a maladaptive cytokine response. Mul-ticenter prospective studies of pain interventions using well-validated pain perception tools are needed to establish causal relationships. Interventions directed toward treating pain on non-HD days may improve ESRD patient survival.
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 | 0.000 | 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".