MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacologic adjuvants to epoetin in the treatment of anemia in patients on hemodialysis

2005· review· en· W1999512363 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey S. Berns, Ari Mosenkis

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisErythropoietinAnemiaEpoetin alfaIntensive care medicineDialysisKidney diseaseInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anemia is a common complication of chronic kidney disease, particularly in patients who are on dialysis. The use of recombinant human erythropoietin has led to the eradication of severe anemia in the dialysis population. Correction of anemia in these patients has been associated with better quality of life and clinical outcomes. Some hemodialysis patients have anemia that either is relatively refractory to epoetin therapy or requires very high doses of epoetin (i.e., hyporesponsiveness), despite having adequate iron stores, and are thus unable to achieve or maintain target hemoglobin levels. Several pharmacologic agents have been studied for effects on improving response to epoetin, either to counter hyporesponsiveness or simply to reduce epoetin use for purely economic reasons. This review examines the available literature regarding the efficacy of these potential pharmacologic adjuvants to epoetin in the treatment of anemia in patients on maintenance hemodialysis, with special emphasis on androgens, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and L-carnitine. A review of published guidelines and recommendations for use of these agents in hemodialysis patients is provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207