<scp>C</scp>ath<scp>A</scp>way fistula vascular access program achieves improved outcomes and sets a new standard of treatment for end‐stage renal disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemodialysis patients using central venous catheters (CVCs) for vascular access are at greater risk of infection and death vs. arterial venous fistula (AVF). In 2008, DaVita initiated the CathAway quality improvement initiative, a multidisciplinary program to reduce CVC use in favor of AVF. Our retrospective analysis examined CVC use for incident (≤90 days) and prevalent (>90 days) patients receiving hemodialysis in the years 2006 to 2010. Outcomes included annual mean percentage of patients with CVCs, new CVC placements per 100 patient years, CVC survival, and percentage patient days with CVC. Over 152,000 patient records were reviewed. Between 76.2% and 79.7% of incident patients used a CVC annually, but for prevalent patients, the proportion decreased from 41.1% in 2006 to 33.5% in 2010. The number of new CVC placements per 100 patient years increased slightly for incident patients but fell annually from 64.8 in 2006 to 55.2 in 2010 for prevalent patients. The percentage of treatment days with CVCs was stable among incident patients (70.4%-74.3%) but fell among prevalent patients from 26.1% in 2006 to 16.5% in 2010. The mean duration of CVC use in incident patients was between 53.0 days (SD, 27.8) in 2006 and 54.1 days (SD, 28.1) in 2009, and for prevalent patients between 158.9 days (SD, 123.0) in 2006 and 128.1 days (SD, 112.0) in 2010. CathAway significantly decreased CVC use in prevalent hemodialysis patients. Decreasing incident patient use will require improvements in predialysis care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".