Impact of frequent hemodialysis on anemia management: results from the Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent to which anemia management is facilitated by more frequent hemodialysis (HD) is controversial. We hypothesized as a preselected outcome that patients receiving HD six times (6×) compared with three times (3×) per week would require lower doses of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESA) and/or achieve higher blood hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations. METHODS: Subjects enrolled in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) daily and nocturnal trials were studied. As the primary outcome for anemia, the dose of ESAs was recorded at 4-month intervals and the monthly dose of intravenous iron (IV Fe) was reported. Serum iron, transferrin saturation and ferritin were measured at baseline and then at 4-month intervals, whereas Hb concentration was measured monthly. RESULTS: There was no significant treatment effect in the 6× versus 3× treatment groups on logESA dose or the ratio of log of ESA dose to Hb concentration in either trial. In the daily trial, Hb concentrations increased significantly in the 6× versus 3× group, at Month 12 compared with baseline (0.3 g/dL; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58, P<0.021), but both groups had Hb concentrations in the usual target range. In the daily trial, the weekly logESA dose and the logESA dose to Hb concentration ratio tended to decline more in the 6× versus 3× group. This trend was not observed in the nocturnal trial. IV Fe doses were significantly lower in the 6× compared with the 3× group by Month 12 in the nocturnal trial, but not different in the daily trial. CONCLUSIONS: In the FHN Daily and Nocturnal Trials, more frequent HD did not have a significant or clinically important effect on anemia management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".