Relationship between hemoglobin level and quality of life in anemic patients with chronic kidney disease receiving epoetin alfa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between hemoglobin (Hb) level and quality of life (QOL) in anemic patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease receiving epoetin alfa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A post-hoc analysis using data from a multicenter, open-label, prospective study of epoetin alfa for anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis was conducted. The relationship between Hb and QOL was analyzed using correlation and longitudinal analyses, the latter adjusting for sample selection bias. The Linear Analog Scale Assessment (LASA) and the Kidney Disease Questionnaire (KDQ) subscales were used to measure QOL. The impact of an incremental 1 g/dL increase in Hb level on LASA and KDQ scores was determined using an incremental analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1183 and 1044 patients formed the study populations for the LASA and KDQ analyses, respectively. There was a positive and significant relationship between Hb levels and QOL (p < 0.05). Using non-linear regression analysis, we characterized the sigmoid-shape of the relationship between Hb levels and QOL scores. Hemoglobin change was a statistically significant determinant of QOL improvement for both LASA and KDQ scales (p < 0.05). The model predicted that, based on a 2 unit change in Hb, the greatest incremental QOL improvement per unit of Hb increase occurred when Hb was in the range of 11 to 12 g/dL. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, beyond the well-known relationship between Hb increases and QOL improvements, the maximal incremental gain in QOL occurred when Hb reached 11 to 12 g/dL. This suggests that treating anemic patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease until their Hb level reaches 12 g/dL will result in the greatest QOL improvement per Hb unit increase. The analyses were conducted based on an open-label study of epoetin alfa and could be further validated using a randomized, controlled trial, comparing incremental gains in QOL associated with treatment initiation at varying levels of Hb across arms.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".