Dose Requirements among Hemodialysis Patients Treated with Darbepoetin-α or Epoetin-β
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In a cohort of hemodialysis patients, we evaluated the hypothesis that weekly administration of intravenous (IV) darbepoetin-alpha (DA) was associated with lower total erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) requirements as compared to a regimen of multiple subcutaneous (SC) doses per week of epoetin-beta (EB). METHODS: We studied 1,159 hemodialysis patients who were treated exclusively with either IV DA or SC EB across a network of Portuguese clinics during 2004. Linear regression was used to assess the adjusted relationship between the ESA regimen and weekly ESA requirements over the period of observation. Generalized estimating equations were applied in order to model the population average effects of the correlated mean weekly ESA dose for each individual. We also calculated propensity scores for the receipt of DA and assessed the relationship between ESA type and dose requirement within each quintile of the score. RESULTS: The adjusted dose of IV DA, when expressed as a proportion of the dose used in EB-treated patients, did not differ from the dose administered to EB recipients (0.961, 95% CI 0.904, 1.021). A similar relationship was observed within each propensity score quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis patients who received IV DA had dose requirements that were similar to their counterparts who were treated with SC EB. A once-weekly dosing regimen and avoidance of SC administration enhance the attractiveness of DA as an alternative to traditional ESAs. The potential for unmeasured confounding, restriction to a population that was treated with a single ESA preparation and application of a 200 IU:1 mug EB:DA dose conversion are important limitations of this study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".