Haemoglobin at time of referral prior to dialysis predicts survival: an association of haemoglobin with long-term outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haemoglobin (Hgb) levels are known to be associated with numerous adverse outcomes in both chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non-CKD patients. This analysis evaluates the association of baseline haemoglobin levels on survival in CKD patients, who are followed by nephrologists, irrespective of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), prior to initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and erythropoietin hormone replacement therapy. Analysis of data from the provincial database (PROMIS, Patient Registration and Outcome Management Information System) in British Columbia, Canada, was undertaken. Records used for the analysis included all CKD patients at first registration: GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), not yet on dialysis, starting from May 1998 to October 2002, and who had complete data (defined as age and gender, diabetic status, eGFR and Hgb levels). The primary objective of this study was to determine the association of Hgb and survival controlling for eGFR at first registration value, age, gender and diabetic status. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis with time to death as outcome variable was performed. The cohort included 3028 patients: the mean age was 65 years, 28% were diabetic, and the mean eGFR in the cohort was 21 ml/min/1.73 m(2). The cohort is representative of the BC CKD and dialysis population regarding ethnicity: 64% Caucasian, 32% Asian. Median follow-up was 27 months, 1 year survival was 0.92, 2 year survival was 0.85. Hgb at initial registration is a statistically independent predictor of survival (RR = 0.875 for every 10 g/l, 95% CI: 0.835-0.917, P = 0.0001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetic status and baseline eGFR. Further analysis, controlling for RRT, demonstrated a similar association between Hgb and survival (RR = 0.853 for every 10 g/l, 95% CI: 0.799-0.910, P = 0.0001), after adjusting for above variables. Substantial variation in Hgb values exists at all GFR levels. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating Hgb at all GFR levels, and the need to study the impact of modification of Hgb at different GFR levels on survival.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".