Erythropoietic Response to Two Epoetin alfa Regimens in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the erythropoietic responses and tolerability of two recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) regimens. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, multicenter study. SETTING: Three multidisciplinary intensive care units in Québec, Canada. PATIENTS: Sixty critically ill patients. INTERVENTION: The first 30 patients received EPO 40,000 U/week (group A); the next 30 received 40,000 U twice/week (group B). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Percent change from baseline in reticulocyte count and hemoglobin concentration were evaluated in both groups on study days 7 and 14. The numbers of adverse events were also compared between the two groups. No statistically significant differences were found in the results between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although the study had limitations, it suggested that EPO 40,000 U twice/week did not increase or sustain stimulation of the erythropoietic response compared with EPO 40,000 U/week in critically ill patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, 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".