MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970248564 · doi:10.5301/jva.5000344

Balloon Angioplasty for Low-Flow Access

2015· review· en· W1970248564 on OpenAlexaff
Dheeraj K. Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Vascular Access · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngioplastyBalloonVascular accessPercutaneousStenosisCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryHemodialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common mechanism for low access flow is intimal hyperplasia leading to stenosis within the access circuit. Balloon angioplasty (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, PTA) remains the mainstay of treatment despite multiple technologies introduced in the past. New technologies continue to be introduced in an effort to improve on outcomes of angioplasty. This article briefly reviews the use of and outcomes of PTA, technologies, past, present and future as well as some of the questions that remain unanswered with PTA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Vascular AccessSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207