Dialysis patients treated with Epoetin alfa show improved anemia symptoms: A new analysis of the Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health-related quality of life (HRQOL) claims in the current Epoetin alfa label are based on the reanalyses of the exercise and physical function data from the Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group trial. The reanalysis was done to comply with the Food and Drug Administration's requirement of using statistical methods that are currently standard in evaluating clinical trial data. Presented here are HRQOL results associated with anemia. The Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group trial was a multicenter, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effects of Epoetin alfa on HRQOL in anemic hemodialysis patients. A total of 118 patients who were 18-75 years old, on hemodialysis for >3 months, who had a hemoglobin <9.0 g/dL, and did not have coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus, were randomized to either receive placebo (n=40), or receive intravenous Epoetin alfa to achieve a target hemoglobin of 9.5-11.0 g/dL (n=40) or a target of 11.5-13.0 g/dL (n=38). Patients were followed for 6 months. The two Epoetin alfa-treatment groups were combined for all analyses performed. This post hoc analysis was conducted using an intent-to-treat repeated measures mixed model analysis of variance using Bonferroni's multiplicity correction. The Epoetin alfa-treated group showed a statistically significant improvement in the Kidney Disease Questionnaire symptom of fatigue in comparison with placebo. Additionally, the change in hemoglobin at 2 months was correlated with change in fatigue, energy, shortness of breath, and weakness, but had minimal effect on depression. These analyses confirm previously reported results, which indicate that treating hemodialysis patients with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent improves HRQOL.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".