Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been increased interest in buttonhole cannulation, particularly in the last 5 years, because of the perceived benefit of improved fistula outcomes. The recent randomized trials provide for a timely review regarding the potential benefit and possible harms of the buttonhole technique. RECENT FINDINGS: The majority of observational studies report a reduction in pain with buttonhole; however, after reviewing the results from five randomized trials, buttonhole cannulation, when delivered by a nurse, does not appear to be less painful than rope ladder cannulation. Studies consistently report fewer infiltrations, reduced hematoma and a reduction of aneurysm formation with buttonhole. These benefits must be balanced against the increased risk of infection and septic complications seen with buttonhole cannulation. SUMMARY: On the basis of the current studies, buttonhole, when done in an in-center environment with many rotating staff nurses, is a complex and challenging technique. Buttonhole technique might be best utilized for difficult or limited fistula needling sites. An infection prevention education campaign along with regular audits regarding localized infections and bacteremias should be a critical part of any program which uses buttonhole cannulation. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole to rope ladder needling among home hemodialysis or self-needled patients should be the focus for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".