Restoring Patency to Central Venous Access Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 2006, the Oncology Nursing Advisory Board met to discuss the current management of central venous access device (CVAD) occlusions for patients receiving cancer treatment in centers across Canada. The board found inconsistency in practice across the country and advocated for the development of evidence-based, standardized guidelines for the use of thrombolytic agents to clear thrombotic occlusions. PubMed was searched for articles related to catheter occlusion, catheter patency, and catheter complications published from 1997-2007. The board compared institutional and published protocols for thrombolytic treatment of occluded CVADs, in light of a systematic, evidence-based review of the literature on CVAD-related complications. Restoration of CVAD patency, when appropriate, represents a safe, effective, and costeffective alternative to device replacement and improves patient quality of life. The treatment algorithm presented in this article reflects the board's consensus recommendations for managing thrombotic CVAD occlusions in adult patients with cancer.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".