Rationale and study design of a three‐period, 58‐week trial of ferric citrate as a phosphate binder in patients with <scp>ESRD</scp> on dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease associated mineral and bone disorders arise as a result of aberrant bone mineral metabolism in patients with advancing levels of renal dysfunction and end-stage renal disease. One of the cornerstones of treatment is the use of phosphate-binding agents. We describe the rationale and study design for a clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ferric citrate as a phosphate binder. This trial is a three-period, international, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ferric citrate as a phosphate binder, consisting of a 2-week washout period, a 52-week safety assessment period in which subjects are randomized to ferric citrate or active control, and a 4-week efficacy assessment period in which subjects randomized to ferric citrate in the safety assessment period are randomized to ferric citrate or placebo. Eligible subjects include end-stage renal disease patients who have been treated with thrice-weekly hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for at least 3 months in dialysis clinics in the United States and Israel. Primary outcome measure will be the effect of ferric citrate vs. placebo on the change in serum phosphorus. Safety assessments will be performed by monitoring adverse events, concomitant medication use, and sequential blood chemistries (including iron parameters, phosphorus, and calcium). This three-period trial will assess the efficacy of ferric citrate as a phosphate binder. If proven safe and efficacious, ferric citrate will likely provide an additional phosphate binder to treat chronic kidney disease associated mineral and bone disorders.
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 | 0.061 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".