Safety of intravenous iron in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among end-stage renal disease patients maintained by hemodialysis, anemia has been managed primarily through erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and intravenous (IV) iron. Following concerns about the cardiovascular (CV) safety of ESAs and changes in the reimbursement policies in Medicare's ESRD program, the use of IV iron has increased. IV iron supplementation promotes hemoglobin production and reduces ESA requirements, yet there exists relatively little evidence on the long-term safety of iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients. Labile iron can induce oxidative stress and is also essential in bacterial growth, leading to concerns about IV iron use and risk of CV events and infections in hemodialysis patients. Existing randomized controlled trials provide little evidence about safety due to insufficient power and short follow-up; recent observational studies have been inconsistent, but some have associated iron exposure with increased risk of infections and CV events. Given the widespread use and potential safety concerns related to IV iron, well-designed large prospective studies are needed to assess to identify optimal strategies for iron administration that maximize its benefits while avoiding potential risks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".