MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Preliminary experience with a new design for a tunneled, cuffed catheter for hemodialysis

2005· article· en· W1979183223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G Bousquet

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCuffExit siteHemodialysisSurgeryCatheterBacteremiaLumen (anatomy)Hemodialysis CatheterThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The use of tunneled, cuffed central venous catheters for hemodialysis is associated with poor flow, thrombosis, and infections due to the transcutaneous nature of these devices. A new design for a sutureless, tunneled cuffed catheter was evaluated in hemodialysis patients to determine the effect of its design on the incidence of exit site infection. Methods: A polyurethane conduit with a uniquely designed cuff and subcutaneous skirt covered with Dacron velour was attached to standard double lumen central venous catheters. Seven (7) Ash catheters and one (1) Tesio catheter were fitted with the overtube and skirt and implanted in eight (8) patients undergoing routine hemodialysis. Patients were monitored for exit site infection, tunnel infection, bacteremia, cuff extrusion, and serosanguineous exudate. Results: Catheters were implanted for 6 to 26 weeks. All catheters remained patent and no cases of bacteremia were observed. There was no evidence of exit site or tunnel infection, and no reported serosanguineous exudate from the exit site. Exit site care consisted of soap and water cleansing by the patient. Patients were able to shower or bathe 4 weeks post‐implant. Conclusions: The new design for a subcutaneous cuff and skirt appears to inhibit exit site infection and other common complications of central venous catheters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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