MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1551785634 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12297

Remove or not, that is the question: A case report on carotid artery cannulation during indwelling venous hemodialysis catheter

2015· article· en· W1551785634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheng‐Chieh Yen, Yi‐Wen Chiu, Hung‐Chun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisCatheterHemodialysis CatheterCentral venous catheterCarotid arteriesIndwelling catheterSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 58-year-old woman visited the emergency department for acute occlusion of arteriovenous fistula. One session of hemodialysis was scheduled via temporary venous hemodialysis catheter before thrombectomy. Unfortunately, neck arterial cannulation was discovered after complete placement of catheter. The catheter was removed immediately but bleeding could not be stopped. Pseudoaneurysm over the right carotid artery was proved by angiography and repaired by graft stent. Arterial cannulation during venous hemodialysis catheter insertion is a rare but serious complication and there is no standard response recommended. Immediate removal of the misplaced hemodialysis catheter might not be the best choice. We suggest to leave the misplaced catheter in artery until further intervention in consideration of complications and repair access. Every hemodialysis center should standardize responses to arterial cannulation during venous hemodialysis catheter indwelling, especially carotid puncture happens, according to the medical facility.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0110.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→