Complete switch to darbepoetin in a hemodialysis unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In March 2003, our hemodialysis unit switched all patients from subcutaneous (s.c.) rHuEPO to intravenous (i.v.) darbepoetin. The primary outcome was to assess the efficacy of i.v. darbepoetin to maintain target serum hemoglobin (Hb) compared to s.c. rHuEPO. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the manufacturer's recommend guidelines for conversion of rHuEPO to darbepoetin, and to assess the cost implications of darbepoetin therapy. METHODS: This was an 18-month open-label observational study of 95 hemodialysis patients. At the time of the switch to darbepoetin (baseline), data were collected retrospectively for six months and prospectively for 12 months, at three-month intervals. The first six months of darbepoetin therapy was considered a dose titration phase, thus, data were analyzed comparing two six-month periods: (-) six months to baseline (rHuEPO phase) and (+) 6-12 months (darbepoetin phase). Doses were titrated to a target Hb of 120-135 g/l. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in Hb between phases at any time point. Mean Hb ranged from 119.6-121.5 g/l for rHuEPO and 121.9-123.4 g/l for darbepoetin. The median darbepoetin dose remained stable throughout the analysis at 30 microg/week while the median dose of rHuEPO rose from 8,000 U/week at minus six months to 9,000 U/week at baseline. Median 12-month cost savings associated with the administration of darbepoetin were estimated at 212,000 dollars. The recommended darbepoetin dose from the manufacturer's conversion table was deemed too low for baseline rHuEPO doses above 17,000 U/week. A more simplified dose conversion nomogram was created. CONCLUSION: Darbepoetin was able to maintain similar serum Hb levels compared to rHuEPO at a substantially reduced cost.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".