Monthly Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator Versus Weekly Epoetin-Beta, Similar Hemoglobinization but Different Anisocytosis Degree in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The monthly continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) utilization maintains stable hemoglobin (Hb) after conversion from weekly epoetin-β (EB); however, how the different pharmacologic properties affect the red blood cell (RBC) size determined by RBC distribution width (RDW) has not been evaluated yet. We assess the potential differences in iron metabolism, plasma erythropoietin (EPO), hepcidin, and soluble α-Klotho (α-Klotho) levels as an emergent hematopoiesis factor. METHODS: Thirty-seven chronic hemodialysis patients were included from January 2010 to November 2011 and randomized (1:1) to continue with EB or to convert to monthly CERA. Primary outcome was the mean change in Hb between groups at months 0, 3 and 6, and the percentage of patients who maintained stable Hb (Hb ± 1 g/dL from baseline level to month 6). Secondary outcomes were the influence on the erythropoietic process and iron metabolism markers. Thirty-one patients completed the study (CERA: n = 15, EB: n = 16). RESULTS: = 0.23). During the evaluation period, in the CERA group, EPO was higher, and hepcidin and ferritin decreased significantly. α-Klotho decreased in both groups and correlated negatively with the changes on the RDW and positively with transferrin and serum iron. The number of serious adverse events was higher at the CERA group. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly CERA maintained Hb concentrations; however, it showed a significant effect on RDW, probably due to its impact on the EPO and hepcidin levels. α-Klotho decreased significantly in both groups, and its changes correlated with the changes in iron metabolism. Whether the RDW evolution was associated with the serious adverse events (SAEs) is a feasible hypothesis that needs to be confirmed in large studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".