Dialysis patients treated with Epoetin <b>α</b> show improved exercise tolerance and physical function: A new analysis of the Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risks/benefits of anemia treatment in dialysis patients have been redefined in the US Epoetin α label. This analysis was carried out to determine if increasing hemoglobin (Hb) levels improve exercise tolerance and physical function in anemic dialysis patients. This is a new analysis of the Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group trial, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in dialysis patients. Subjects were 18 to 75 years old, on hemodialysis for >3 months, and had a baseline Hb <9.0 g/dL. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, or severe/uncontrolled hypertension were excluded. Patients were randomized to receive Epoetin α to a target Hb of 9.5 to 11.0 g/dL (n=40) or a target of 11.5 to 13.0 g/dL (n=38), or receive placebo (n=40). Results from patients in the Epoetin-α-treated arms were combined for this analysis. Hb level, exercise tolerance (Treadmill Stress Test and 6-Minute Walk Test) and patient-reported physical function measures (Physical Summary domain from the Kidney Disease Questionnaire, and 4 domains from the Sickness Impact Profile) were reported at baseline and months 2, 4, and 6. Differences in measures were statistically significant for exercise tolerance (Treadmill Stress, P=0.0001) and patient-reported physical function (Kidney Disease Questionnaire Physical, P=0.0001; Sickness Impact Profile Physical, P=0.0015) across all time points for Epoetin-α-treated patients compared with placebo. Improvements were seen at 2 months and were maintained through months 4 and 6. Dialysis patients receiving Epoetin α showed improved exercise tolerance and physical function. These findings should be considered as physicians weigh the risks and benefits of treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".