Erythropoietin‐stimulating agents in the management of anemia of end‐stage renal disease patients on regular hemodialysis: A prospective randomized comparative study from <scp>Q</scp>atar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite extensive use, to the best of our knowledge, no trial has simultaneously compared the three currently used erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) in a prospective manner in the treatment of anemia of end-stage renal disease patients. All hemodialysis patients in Qatar who were treated with short-acting epoetin alfa or beta have been screened. Eligible patients had been prospectively randomized, either to continue on the previous regimen of epoetin or to receive darbepoetin alfa or continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) for a total period of 40 weeks. All groups were assessed at the end of the study for safety and efficacy parameters. A total of 327 eligible patients were randomized. Mean hemoglobin concentration remained constant within the recommended target range (11-12 g/dL) throughout the study in the three studied groups. The percentage of patients who reached the target range was constantly above 50% in the second half of the study among CERA group patients who also had significantly lower mean number of dose adjustments as compared with the other two groups (P = 0.001). Similarly, the number of discontinuations of ESA among epoetin, darbepoetin, and CERA groups was 17, 19, and 9, respectively (P = 0.042). The frequencies of adverse events were similar in all groups. This study has specifically compared the effect of ESA type on the variability of serum hemoglobin levels in hemodialysis patients. Furthermore, it confirmed the efficacy and safety of once monthly CERA for maintaining tight hemoglobin control within recommended target ranges.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".