MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

HCO<sub>3</sub> increment in arterial line can reveal significant vascular access recirculation in high‐flux hemodialysis: A preliminary report

2006· article· en· W1974855241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kostas Sombolos, Fotini Christidou, Gerasimos Bamichas, Lazaros Gionanlis, Anna Karagianni, Theodoros Anagnostopoulos, Taïsir A. Natse

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisArterial lineMedicineArterial bloodInternal medicineAnesthesiaCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a new and simple way that can reveal the presence of vascular access recirculation (VAR) in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). Acid-base and blood gas parameters (pH, pO(2), pCO(2), and HCO(3)) were measured in blood samples drawn from an arterial fistula needle before the initiation of HD and from arterial and venous lines simultaneously 5 min later, in 31 patients (group A). Vascular access recirculation was measured using the glucose infusion test (GIT) immediately after the withdrawal of the 5-min samples. The same study was repeated in 30 patients in whom HD lines were reversed (group B). A comparison with baseline (predialysis) values of an analysis of the arterial line in group A at 5 min revealed that pCO(2) increased by 1.14+/-2.5 mmHg and HCO(3) by 0.6+/-0.6 mM/L (p<0.02 and p<0.00001, respectively). The corresponding pO(2) and pH values did not show significant differences. Glucose infusion test at 5 min (GITa) was -0.058+/-0.03%. A comparison with baseline (predialysis) values of an analysis of the arterial line in group B at 5 min revealed that pCO(2) increased by 7.7+/-3.5 mmHg and HCO(3) by 2.9+/-1.0 mM/L (p<0.000001 in each case). The pH level was significantly lower in comparison with baseline values (p<0.00001), while pO(2) did not show a significant difference. Glucose infusion test at 5 min (GITb) was 12.0+/-6.1% (p<0.000001 in comparison with GITa values). Clinically significant VAR was defined as HCO(3) increment >1.8 mM/L, based on the receiver-operating characteristics curve, which showed a threshold value of HCO(3) increment >1.8 mmol/L as a predictor of GIT recirculation. Five minutes after the initiation of high-flux HD with a 0 ultrafiltration rate, there is a small increment in arterial HCO(3) values relative to predialysis values. Clinically significant VAR is present when this increment is higher than 1.8 mM/L.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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