Venous Aneurysms in Autogenous Hemodialysis Fistulas: Is There an Association with Venous Outflow Stenosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether patients with venous aneurysms in their arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) have associated venous outflow stenoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed, which included all patients presenting with dysfunction and had venous aneurysms in their AVFs. Patient's medical records and imaging studies were examined and data collected including access characteristics, patient demographics and imaging findings. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (58 men, 31 women; mean age 60) presented for intervention related to access dysfunction with incident venous aneurysms over the study period. Of the 89 patients with venous aneurysms (mean diameter 2.3 cm) of their AVF's, 69 (78%) patients had an associated venous outflow stenosis. The stenoses were present most commonly in the outflow cephalic vein (57%), followed by the cephalic arch (20%), brachiocephalic vein (10%) and subclavian vein (6%). Outflow stenoses in AVFs with venous aneurysms were observed in 87% of brachiocephalic AVFs, 60% of radiocephalic AVFs and 80% of brachiobasilic AVFs. Brachiocephalic AVFs with venous aneurysms were significantly more likely to have an associated outflow stenosis than radiocephalic AVFs with venous aneurysms (P=0.007). AVFs with outflow stenosis were on average 1502 days old while AVFs without outflow stenosis were on average 2351 days old, which was a statistically significant difference (P=0.031). No statistically significant differences were observed for sex and side of the fistula. CONCLUSIONS: Outflow stenosis was observed to be associated with venous aneurysms in AVFs with a more statistically significant association in brachiocephalic AVFs compared to other AVFs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".