Investigating the relationship between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in hemodialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, various studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and mortality in hemodialysis patients, who showed contradictory results. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between ESAs and mortality in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: The current study is a systematic review and meta-analysis based on observational and interventional studies published in the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases between 1980 and the end of 2022. Jadad scale checklist and Newcastle Ottawa scale were used to evaluate the quality of articles. The study data were analyzed using Stata 15 software. RESULTS: In the initial search, 3933 articles were extracted, and by screening and considering the research criteria, 68 studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis results, the risk ratio (RR) of overall mortality in hemodialysis patients receiving ESAs was equal to 1.19 (95% CI: 1.16-1.23, P ≤ 0.001). The RR of mortality in patients aged 60 years and under was equal to 1.33 (1.15-1.55, P ≤ 0.001), in the age group over 60 years was equal to 1.13 (1.10-1.16, P ≤ 0.001), in randomized clinical trial studies was equal to 1.06 (0.80-1.40, P = 0.701), in cohort studies was equal to 1.20 (1.16-1.25, P ≤ 0.001), in American countries was equal to 1.19 (1.10-1.29, P ≤ 0.001), in Asian countries was equal to 1.15 (1.10-1.19, P ≤ 0.001), and in European countries was equal to 1.18 (1.05-1.34, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The results of the study show that receiving ESAs is associated with a 19% increase in the risk of overall mortality in hemodialysis patients.
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 | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".