MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Survival of Vascular Access in Daily Dialysis (DHD)

2003· article· en· W1974401183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesca Bermond, Manuel Burdese, Marco Quaglia, Elisabetta Mezza, Massimo Gai, Giorgio Soragna, A Jeantet, Segoloni Gp, Piccoli Gb

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisHemodialysisAngioplastyArteriovenous fistulaHazard ratioOcclusionProportional hazards modelInternal medicineSurgeryCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most feared problems in DHD is the risk of vascular access failure, so that it often limits the diffusion of this technique. Available data are limited; moreover, in most cases data regard home hemodialysis (HHD) patients, with the problem of the risk of a selection bias. The aim of the study was to evaluate the number of fistula complications (occlusion, infections, necessity of surgical treatment, angioplasty or urokinasi) in two groups of patients either on a DHD or on other dialysis schedules, in patients at home or in Limited Care Center. In the period considered (total period about 1500 patient-months; HHD: non DHD 463, DHD 278 months; Limited Care Center: non DHD 613, DHD 140 months) we registered 37 events (12 with vascular access occlusion, 11 with necessity of surgical treatment, 14 with necessity of other intervention, angioplasty or urokinasi). In particular, we registered 23 events in HHD (18 non DHD, 6 with vascular access occlusion and 5 DHD, 3 with vascular access occlusion, respectively 4/100 and 2/100 patient-months), 14 events in Limited Care Center (8 non DHD, none with vascular access failure and 6 DHD, 3 with vascular access failure, respectively 1/100 and 4/100 patient-months). Survival curves according to Kaplan-Meier didn’t show significant differences for DHD group; a worse survival was shown for HHD patients. In a Cox-proportional hazard model history of previous vascular episodes and HHD were independent risk factors (RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.06–3.83 and RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.15–3.39 respectively; overall score 0.04), while a protective role for male sex was present (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30–0.96). In conclusion: The increased number of punctures in DHD didn’t cause, in our study, an increase in the risk of vascular access occlusion. The surprise was the disadvantage of HHD compared to dialysis in Limited Care Center, contrary to all expectations. Results from this observational study will be study in depth (relationship with previous vascular problems, hypotension, body weight loss, biochemical risk factors, dialysis efficiency) and for a more prolonged period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→