Factors affecting anemia management in hemodialysis patients: A single‐center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difficulty maintaining hemoglobin (Hgb) within the targets recommended by KDOQI is widely recognized. While factors responsible for erythropoietin resistance have been widely studied, factors responsible for the marked fluctuations and the inability to maintain Hgb within the target range have only begun to be investigated. This study was a cross-sectional review of anemia management in hemodialysis patients. The purpose was to evaluate factors responsible for Hgb decreases of 0.5 or 1.0 g/dL and to determine the primary factors responsible for Hgb decreases below 11 g/dL. Hgb values and clinical events were extracted from patient management databases between January 1, 2005 and November 30, 2006. Isolated events were defined as events that occurred at least 30 days after any previous event and had Hgb measurements within 2 weeks before and after the event. Increasing hospital length of stay and surgical access intervention were the most common events that resulted in a decrease in Hgb. The most common factor present in patients with Hgb decreases below 11 g/dL was the withholding of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) within the preceding 2 months. This was the only explanation for the decrease in Hgb to <11 g/dL in 38.5% of such events. The ability to maintain dialysis patients' Hgb in the target range is complicated by intervening acute events that require hospitalization or surgical access interventions. The withholding of rHuEPO appears to be a major factor in Hgb decreases below 11 g/dL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".