Assessing Functional Cognition in Adults on Chronic Hemodialysis Therapy using Performance-Based Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The relationship between cognitive impairment and everyday functioning in people on hemodialysis is currently unclear. This study aims to estimate the proportion of hemodialysis patients who exhibit functional cognitive impairments on performance-based assessments. Methods: Cognition and everyday functioning were assessed via performance-based assessments (UPSA-B and MMAA), a cognitive test (MoCA), and self-report measures (CFQ, Barthel Index, and Lawton-Brody IADL Scale) in 105 hemodialysis patients in Toronto, Canada. The UPSA-B was correlated with the MoCA, CFQ, Barthel Index and Lawton-Brody IADL scale. Results: 54% of participants demonstrated impairments on the UPSA-B and MMAA. The UPSA-B correlated strongly with the MoCA but weakly with the CFQ, Barthel Index, and Lawton-Brody IADL Scale. Conclusion: Performance-based testing revealed functional cognitive impairment in over 50% of people on hemodialysis, highlighting its importance in cognitive assessment in this population. Future research should explore cognitive rehabilitation to minimize this impact.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".