Effect of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Therapy on Blood Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to examine the effect of human recombinant erythropoietin on the treatment of anemia in 118 hemodialysis patients. The effectiveness of therapy on hemoglobin concentration and quality of life has been reported elsewhere. Herein is reported the effect of erythropoietin therapy on blood pressure. Patients receiving erythropoietin had a significant increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP; p = 0.001) and required increased antihypertensive medication. There was no difference in the incidence of severe hypertension (DBP greater than 110 mm Hg or hypertension-related seizure) between placebo-treated patients (13%) and those receiving erythropoietin (14%). The development of severe hypertension in erythropoietin-treated patients was associated with a history of receiving antihypertensive medication or having native kidneys in situ. In the first 5 weeks of the study, there was a correlation between the change in hemoglobin concentration and the change in DBP (r = 0.42, p less than 0.001). Although erythropoietin therapy was associated with a significant increase in DBP, there was no difference between placebo- and erythropoietin-treated patients with respect to severe hypertension or hypertension-related seizures.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".