Effect of vitamin D supplementation on management of anemia in hemodialysis patients with vitamin D deficiency: A double‐blind, randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anemia and vitamin D deficiency are common problems among hemodialysis (HD) patients. This study aimed to assess the impact of correction of vitamin D deficiency with vitamin D supplementation on the improvement of anemia in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on maintenance HD. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled study included 100 anemic HD patients with vitamin D deficiency who were randomly divided using the closed envelop method into two groups (1:1). The first group received vitamin D (50,000 IU) monthly for 6 months, and the other group received a placebo for the same period. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels were measured for both groups at the beginning of the study and after 6 months at the end of the study. Hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations were recorded monthly. FINDINGS: Vitamin D supplementation during the period of the study increased 25(OH)D levels in the vitamin D group more than the placebo group (p > 0.001). Serum ferritin, serum iron, and transferrin saturation did not differ significantly between both groups during the period of the study. Hb concentration in the vitamin D group increased more than that in the other group over the period of the study, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in all durations of follow-up. Erythropoietin (EPO) dosage requirements were found to be lower in the vitamin D group than in the placebo group, and this was statistically significant (p > 0.001). DISCUSSION: Vitamin D supplementation in anemic ESRD patients on HD with vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency is safe and effective in improving anemia and decreasing EPO dosage.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".