Observational studyMedicine2026
Development and validation of a predictive model for cognitive impairment in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A retrospective, cross-sectional study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is a common and clinically relevant complication among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. We developed and internally validated a simple risk score based on routinely available clinical and laboratory parameters to identify prevalent cognitive impairment in this population. In a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 260 stable adult patients from 2 dialysis centers, cognitive impairment was defined by a Montreal Cognitive Assessment score < 26. Multivariable logistic regression identified 6 independent predictors: older age, lower educational attainment, history of cerebrovascular disease, higher serum uric acid, lower serum calcium, and lower serum sodium. The model showed strong discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.90) and acceptable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .48). We derived a simplified 0-20 point score that stratified risk from 8.5% in the low-risk group to 89.1% in the high-risk group (P for trend < .001). Higher scores were concurrently associated with greater interdialytic weight gain, poorer phosphorus control, increased falls, and longer hospital stays (all P < .001), indicating broader vulnerability beyond cognition alone. This pragmatic 6-item score may help clinicians flag patients who warrant targeted cognitive monitoring and multidisciplinary support in busy dialysis settings. External validation across diverse cohorts is needed before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.