Evaluating epoetin dosing strategies using observational longitudinal data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epoetin is commonly used to treat anemia in chronic kidney disease and End Stage Renal Disease subjects undergoing dialysis, however, there is considerable uncertainty about what level of hemoglobin or hematocrit should be targeted in these subjects. In order to address this question, we treat epoetin dosing guidelines as a type of dynamic treatment regimen. Specifically, we present a methodology for comparing the effects of alternative treatment regimens on survival using observational data. In randomized trials patients can be assigned to follow a specific management guideline, but in observational studies subjects can have treatment paths that appear to be adherent to multiple regimens at the same time. We present a cloning strategy in which each subject contributes follow-up data to each treatment regimen to which they are continuously adherent and artificially censored at first nonadherence. We detail an inverse probability weighted log-rank test with a valid asymptotic variance estimate that can be used to test survival distributions under two regimens. To compare multiple regimens, we propose several marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models with robust variance estimation to account for the creation of clones. The methods are illustrated through simulations and applied to an analysis comparing epoetin dosing regimens in a cohort of 33,873 adult hemodialysis patients from the United States Renal Data System.
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 | 0.122 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".