Comparing frozen saphenous vein with <scp>G</scp>ore‐tex in vascular access for chronic hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performing chronic hemodialysis in patients suffering from end-stage renal disease needs a suitable vascular access like arteriovenous fistula in the upper limbs and bridge fistula in the upper or lower limbs, and also use of permanent and temporary catheters. The purpose of this study is to compare frozen saphenous vein versus using synthetic Gore-tex vascular graft for A-V fistula. In the prospective randomized study, 70 patients needing for dialysis access were randomly divided into two groups. We performed the frozen saphenous vein A-V fistula in the test group and the Gore-tex fistula in the control group. An assessment included function criteria (fistula thrill and murmur) and complications (infection and thrombosis) in planned intervals. At the end of the follow-up period, the flow rates of all fistulas were assessed by Doppler sonography. The data were compared. Comparing the function criteria (fistula murmur and thrill) and the flow rate of the test group (frozen saphenous A-V fistula) and the control group (Gore-tex method) showed no significant difference and also no significant difference between two groups in thrombosis. Infection rate of the Gore-tex method was significantly high (p < 0.05). Arteriovenous fistula was an acceptable alternative in chronic hemodialysis, and frozen saphenous vein arteriovenous fistula was superior to Gore-tex arteriovenous graft in some aspects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".