Optimal Vascular Access Choice for Patients on Hemodialysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Which vascular access to use is considered one of the most important questions in the care of patients on hemodialysis (HD). An arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is often considered the gold standard for delivering HD due to better patient survival, higher quality of life, and fewer complications. However, AVFs have some limitations: they require surgery, it takes approximately three months to know whether the surgery was successful, and a majority of these surgeries end in failure. Conversely, another common vascular access, the central venous catheter, can be inserted via a simple procedure and used immediately after placement. In this research, we address the question of whether and when to perform AVF surgery on incident and established HD patients, with the aim of finding individualized policies that maximize a patient’s probability of survival and remaining quality-adjusted life expectancy. Using a continuous-time dynamic programming model and under certain data-driven assumptions, we establish structural properties of the optimal policy for each objective. We provide further insights for policy makers through our numerical experiments.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it