Iron deficiency anemia in chronic kidney disease: Uncertainties and cautions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anemia in chronic kidney disease is common and iron deficiency is an important cause. To repair iron-deficiency anemia, replacement of iron is needed. Iron can be replaced either by the oral route or by the intravenous route. In a meta-analysis, 5 of the 6 trials were short-term, 1 to 3 months, and compared to oral iron, the mean increase in hemoglobin with intravenous iron was only 0.31 g/dL. However, one of the studies included in this meta-analysis was 6 months long and had a mean decline in hemoglobin of 0.52 g/dL associated with intravenous iron administration. Given the short duration of most of the clinical trials comparing oral with intravenous administration of iron the long-term safety of these modes of administration of supplemental iron could not be assessed. Replacement of iron by the oral route is associated with mostly minor complications such as black stools, constipation, and abdominal discomfort. In contrast, intravenous administration of iron may lead to severe adverse events such as anaphylaxis and, as a more recent randomized trial has suggested, delayed complications such as infections and cardiovascular disease. Delayed complications of repeated intravenous iron use are difficult to recognize at an individual level therefore inpatients who have had recent cardiovascular events or are infected, intravenous iron should probably be avoided. Balancing safety and efficacy would require clinical judgment because 1 size may not fit all till we have better data to support the liberal use of parenteral iron.
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 | 0.037 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".