MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074647431

Outcomes Associated with Conventional Accelerated Versus Once-Weekly IV Iron Therapy in Outpatients Undergoing Hemodialysis

2015· article· en· W7074647431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegimenDosingHemodialysisAnemiaTransferrin saturationHemoglobinIntravenous ironIron sucrose
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although parenteral iron replacement is a key aspect of managing anemia in patients who are undergoing hemodialysis, studies evaluating novel iron dosing regimens are scarce.\nObjective: To compare the effectiveness of a once-weekly IV iron dosing strategy with that of a conventional accelerated iron dosing regimen in patients undergoing hemodialysis.\nMethods: In this retrospective cohort study, patient-specific information was collected for individuals undergoing hemodialysis who received IV iron between June 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012, at a community hospital in southwestern Ontario. The primary outcomes were hemoglobin level and utilization of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent for 2 groups of patients: those receiving iron according to a once-weekly IV regimen and those receiving iron by a conventional accelerated IV regimen.\nResults: Of the 148 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 (66.9%) received iron by a conventional accelerated regimen and 49 (33.1%) by a once-weekly IV regimen. Generalized estimating equations developed from 313 observations obtained from these 148 patients suggested that average transferrin saturation percentage and iron concentration were both significantly higher in the group that received iron once weekly than in the group that received iron by the conventional accelerated regimen (p = 0.014 and 0.008, respectively). The mean weekly dose of erythropoiesis- stimulating agent was significantly lower in the once-weekly administration group than in the conventional administration group (7419 versus 10 706 units; p = 0.041). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of hemoglobin concentration (p = 0.46) or ferritin level (p = 0.13).\nConclusions: The findings of this study suggest that a once-weekly iron dosing regimen may be superior to a conventional accelerated dosing regimen for managing iron deficiency anemia in patients who are undergoing 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.118 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207