Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in SARS‐CoV2 patients on hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The passive immunization of patients with SARS-CoV2 with convalescent plasma (CP) is theoretically beneficial in patients with end-stage renal disease who are immunosuppressed and unable to mount an adequate immune response. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CP in patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis with moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV2 infection. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted in consecutive 68 moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV2 infected patients who were on maintenance hemodialysis or with acute worsening of chronic kidney disease which required initiation of hemodialysis. Patients who received CP were compared with those who did not. The primary outcome was death during hospitalization. Clinical characteristics, duration of hospitalization and inflammatory parameters were compared between the two groups. A subgroup analysis was done to find whether early initiation of plasma was associated with better outcome. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (44%) in the plasma group and 14 (45%) patients in the control group died during hospitalization (p = 0.95). The median duration of hospitalization was 9 (6-14) days in the plasma group and 9 (6-16) in the control group (p = 0.60). There was no difference in mortality or duration of hospitalization with respect to early initiation of CP (p = 0.29). Fistula thrombosis occurred in two patients (11.1%) in the plasma group. CONCLUSION: Therapy with CP does not appear to confer any clinical benefit in moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".