Approach to prophylactic measures for central venous catheter‐related infections in hemodialysis: A critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular access is the major risk factor for bacteremia, hospitalization, and mortality among hemodialysis (HD) patients. The type of vascular access most associated with bloodstream infection is central venous catheter (CVC). The incidence of catheter-related bacteremia ranges between 0.6 and 6.5 episodes per 1000 catheter days and increases linearly with the duration of catheter use. Given the high prevalence of CVC use and its direct association with catheter-related bacteremia, which adversely impacts morbidity and mortality rates and costs among HD patients, several prevention measures aimed at reducing the rates of CVC-related infections have been proposed and implemented. As a result, a large number of clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses have been conducted in order to assess the effectiveness, clinical applicability, and long-term adverse effects of such measures. In the following article, prophylactic measures against CVC-related infections in HD patients and their possible advantages and limitations will be discussed, and the more recent literature on clinical experience with prophylactic antimicrobial lock therapy in HD CVCs will be reviewed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".