A new safety device for hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accidental venous needle dislodgement during hemodialysis may cause serious bleeding including a sometimes fatal outcome. The venous pressure gauge of the dialysis monitor does not react when dislodgement occurs. A sensor patch put as an adhesive over the venous needle puncture site connected to an alarm unit by an optic fiber has been clinically tested in 5 dialysis departments. A small amount of blood on the sensor activates a light and sound alarm. A simple questionnaire was filled out by the nurses at each dialysis concerning their feeling of safety when the new device was used. Forty-one patients, mean age 65 years, have tested the new safety device. Two hundred test dialyses were studied, after exclusion of 13 tests. One hundred seventy-nine tests reacted positively on blood. In another 6 dialyses, a warning light appeared on the alarm unit indicating a failure in the sensor patch. Thus, the alarm functioned in 92.5% of all tests. After a small modification of the sensor patches there were only 2 dialyses (2/71) without an activated alarm on blood, i.e., 97.2% positive alarm reactions. The answers of the nurses indicated that they had an increased feeling of safety when using the new safety device, with a mean value of 3.4 points on a visual scale from 0 to 5 where 5 meant very much increased safety. In a situation when the dialysis monitors today do not react on bleedings from venous needle dislodgements, the new alarm safety device fulfils a known shortage in routine dialysis safety. In situations where supervision during a dialysis session may be insufficient as, for example, in home hemodialysis and self-care dialysis or in other situations when the patient is sleeping, the device may be life saving.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".