Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in elderly patients with anemia: response and cardiovascular outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A specific cause of anemia cannot be identified in many elderly patients. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) may play a role in treating these patients with anemia of unknown etiology (AUE). This study examines hemoglobin and cardiovascular outcomes among elderly anemic patients treated with ESAs. We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included all anemic patients older than age 60 years who had erythropoietin (EPO) measured between 2005 and 2013 at a single center. Three independent reviewers used defined criteria to assign each patient's anemia to 1 of 4 groups: chronic kidney disease (CKD), myelodysplastic syndrome, AUE, or other etiology. Logistic regression was used to compare treatment response (defined per the International Working Group response criteria in myelodysplasia). Adjusted Cox regression analysis was used to calculate the cardiovascular event hazard ratios associated with ESA treatment. A total of 570 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 101 received ESAs. There was a nonstatistically significant but quantitatively better response in AUE (47%) and CKD (54%) compared with other etiologies (22%). The adjusted odds ratio for response in AUE compared with other etiologies was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.838-13.0). A baseline EPO level <200 IU/L independently predicted treatment response. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular events or cardiovascular event-free survival between the treated and untreated groups after adjusting for confounders. Our results suggest that ESAs may effectively treat AUE, and responses may be similar to those in CKD. We could not detect a statistically significant increase in cardiovascular events in the studied cohort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".