Should measuring haemoglobin among chronic kidney disease patients be a performance measure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We attempted to: (1) to assess whether or not adequate evidence exists to advocate the measurement of anaemia in chronic kidney disease as a performance measure; and (2) to determine what the appropriate benchmarks might be for health systems seeking to implement this performance measure. DESIGN: Our study was conducted in two phases: (1) we used the United States Preventive Service Task Force chain of evidence methodology to determine six key questions that were subsequently reviewed to determine if adequate evidence existed to recommend haemoglobin testing among patients with chronic kidney disease; and (2) in order to establish a benchmark for a potential performance measure we measured the number of patients who had a test for anaemia during the preceding year and during the preceding three years. We established these benchmarks using chronic kidney disease defined both by estimated glomerular filtration rate and ICD-9 codes. SETTING: Benchmarking was undertaken at Kaiser Permanente Northwest, which serves the Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington metropolitan area, and Kaiser Permanente Georgia, which serves the Atlanta metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic kidney disease identified by either estimated glomerular filtration rate or ICD-9 code. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT: Serum haemoglobin INTERVENTION: This was an observational study. RESULTS: Our review of the evidence found no direct evidence that testing for anaemia among patients with chronic kidney disease improved patient morbidity or mortality. The ideal test for anaemia was serum haemoglobin. We found that available treatments of anaemia improve fatigue, but may increase mortality and stoke. We also found that an overwhelming majority of patients with chronic kidney disease defined by either estimated glomerular filtration rate or ICD-9 codes, over one or three years had had a haemoglobin measurement. CONCLUSION: There is currently inadequate evidence to recommend haemoglobin measurement among patients with chronic kidney disease as a performance measure. In addition, most patients with chronic kidney disease have already had haemoglobin measurement, minimizing the potential benefit of a performance measure.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".