The influence of between‐needle cannulation distance on the efficacy of hemodialysis treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a belief that there should be a minimum of 5 cm between two cannulating needles of an arteriovenous fistula. This study examined the effect of reduction of space between needles from 5 cm to 2.5 cm on access recirculation, the measurement of access blood flow rate (by indicator dilution technology), and dialysis efficiency (by effective ionic dialysance). Twelve patients were studied, with half having their dialysis needles placed 2.5 cm apart for five consecutive dialysis treatments followed by placing needles 5 cm apart for a further five consecutive treatments. The other half initiated with 5 cm followed by 2.5 cm distance for a similar number of treatments. All 120 dialyses had successful cannulations with access recirculation excluded. Access blood flow (Qa mL/min) measurement was attempted for each patient twice, with each of the two needle positions. The Qa with needles 2.5 cm apart was 1310.95 ± 525.7 mL/min (M ± SD, n = 21) and was 1001.0 ± 240.4 mL/min when 5 cm apart (n = 22) (p = 0.014). There was a correlation between these two sets of Qa values (r = 0.554; p = 0.011). The effective ionic dialysance values obtained with needles 2.5 cm or 5 cm apart were similar and correlated strongly (r = 0.71; p = 0.000). Hemodialysis treatments using arteriovenous fistulae and two needles as close as 2.5 cm apart are possible without access recirculation and impairment of clearance. Indicator dilution access blood flow measurements are not recommended under these circumstances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".