Effect of ethnicity on erythropoietin therapy response for hemodialysis patients: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anemia is a common feature in chronic kidney disease patients due to deficiency of erythropoietin (EPO). Diseased kidneys are unable to produce EPO, which enhances red blood cell production from the bone marrow. Recombinant human EPO in hemodialysis patients was introduced with perfect outcomes as a hormonal substitutive treatment. Some ethnic minority groups have high prevalence of anemia associated with chronic kidney diseases. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences between African Caribbeans and Caucasians' EPO therapy response with regard to hemoglobin (Hb), some factors affecting it and some comorbid conditions. A retrospective study for 6 months of 100 patients on hemodialysis was conducted on two ethnic minorities groups; 46 patients were African Caribbean and 54 patients were Caucasian, who received EPO therapy at once or three times weekly dose at the Hanbury Dialysis Unit of Royal London Hospital. There were three types of EPO therapy used: Aranesp, Mircera and Neorecormon. Forty-six patients were African Caribbean and 54 patients were Caucasian. There were 63.4% of patients treated by Aranesp while 13% were given Mircera; 22.8% of the sample used Neorecorman. It was shown that the chosen comorbid conditions had higher percentage in the African Caribbeans than in Caucasians. Diabetic and/or hypertensive patients are almost double the patient numbers. In addition, sickle cell anemia is only present in African Caribbeans. There were 43.5% of African Caribbeans and 81.1% of Caucasians who met the standards of Hb level. There was no significant difference between African Caribbeans and Caucasians regarding parathyroid hormone, c-reactive protein, B12, mean corpuscular volume, ferritin, and folate. In this study, there was a significant difference in the Hb levels between African Caribbean and Caucasian groups. Sixty percent of African Caribbeans had mean Hb less than normal levels. However, they received lower EPO dose than Caucasians. As a result, this may affect the whole treatment and therapy which may lead to anemic complications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".