MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of anemia in patients on hemodialysis

2009· article· en· W2019262632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Willy Aasebø, Anders Hartmann, Trond Jenssen

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisAnemiaErythropoietinFerritinHemoglobinInternal medicineGastroenterologyPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even though the use of erythropoietin and intravenous iron has improved the treatment of anemia in hemodialysis patients, a considerable proportion of these patients still have anemia. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of anemia in a hemodialysis population. In a single-center hemodialysis unit, all patients were studied with blood tests and their medication recorded during a period of 22 months. Correlations with hemoglobin (Hb) were performed with a simple regression or a t test. Variables that reached 5% significance were entered in a multiple regression analysis. Selected variables were presented in quartiles with levels of Hb. Mean Hb was 11.3 g/dL, and 53 patients (40%) had Hb<11.0 g/dL. In the simple regression analysis Hb correlated positively with s-iron, CHr, s-albumin, and doses of sevelamer, and negatively with sedimentation rate (SR), ferritin, base excess, and doses of erythropoietin. In the multiple regression analysis erythrocytes SR was the only variable that remained significant. Elevated SR is the strongest predictor of anemia in hemodialysis patients receiving adequate treatment with erythropoietin and intravenous iron. Patients using high doses of sevelamer had higher Hb levels than patients using low doses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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