Exceeding hemoglobin target levels in US hemodialysis patients receiving epoetin, 1999 to 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite emerging concerns that exceeding anemia targets with erythropoiesis stimulating agents may be risky for hemodialysis patients, the magnitude of and risk factors for the problem have received little attention, particularly regarding year-to-year comparisons. We studied monthly hemoglobin and epoetin levels in 41,101 patients aged at least 65 years who initiated hemodialysis between 1999 and 2002, with upper targets defined by hemoglobin levels of 120 and 130 g/L, respectively. While baseline hemoglobin values and epoetin doses rose from year to year, their rates of change during follow-up declined (p<0.0001). Similar patterns were seen after reaching hemoglobin levels of 110 g/L; comparing 1999 to 2002, the proportions reaching 120 and 130 g/L in the ensuing 9 months increased from 90% to 96% (p<0.0001) and from 56% to 69%, respectively (p<0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that, while more recent years of dialysis inception and initial epoetin dose were associated with all 3 outcomes, higher baseline hemoglobin levels were associated with reaching levels of 110 and 120 g/L, but not 130 g/L. Exceeding hemoglobin level targets has become widespread in the United States and is associated with changes in epoetin dosing practices.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".