The effects of calcium-based versus non-calcium-based phosphate binders on mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of calcium compared with non-calcium-based phosphate binders on mortality, cardiovascular events and vascular calcification in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are unknown. METHODS: To address this question, we conducted a systematic review. We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL. We identified 160 potential studies and included 8 randomized trials. Eligible studies, determined by consensus using predefined criteria, were reviewed, and data were extracted onto a standard from. RESULTS: There was a trend towards a decrease in all-cause mortality among non-calcium-based versus calcium-based phosphate binders [relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95% CI 0.41-1.11] based upon eight randomized controlled trials and 2873 subjects. Two trials reported on cardiovascular events with a RR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.35-2.03) in patients receiving calcium-based versus non-calcium-based binders. Coronary artery calcification was reported in five trials involving 469 patients; the difference in the change in the calcium score from baseline to follow-up among subjects taking non-calcium-based binders versus calcium-based binders was -76.35 (95% CI -158.25-5.55). CONCLUSION: Despite the trends observed, we did not find a statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality and coronary artery calcification in patients receiving calcium-based phosphate binders compared to non-calcium-based phosphate binders. However, the data are limited by the small number of studies and the confidence intervals do not exclude a potentially important beneficial effect. Therefore, further randomized trials are required.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".