ACCESS RECIRCULATION AND THE USE OF VENOVENOUS DIALYSIS CATHETERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access recirculation (AR) is important as it can diminish the adequacy of dialysis. It is believed that AR is common in veno-venous catheters. However, the frequency of AR with the use of such catheters has not been established. We studied 24 patients with catheters (19 Perm-caths, and 5 temporary catheters). AR was measured by the ultrasound dilution (Transonic) technique. Qb was increased to maximum rate (venous pressure < 250 mmHg, arterial pressure >-250 mmHg). Qb ranged from 300 – 450 ml/min (average 420 ml/min). With catheters in normal position, 2 people had nonsignificant AR (4%), 3 had significant AR (>5%), and the rest had 0 recirculation. AR ranged from 7% – 51% (average 18%) with catheters in reverse position. In conclusion, AR is rarely present when veno-venous catheters are used in the normal position. If AR is present, it usually implies that there is catheter malfunction such as thrombosis. Reversing the lines results in some recirculation, varying with the individual, and the Qb. Therefore, to ensure optimal dialysis adequacy, care must be taken in using veno-venous catheters in reversed position, and maximal possible Qb should be used with the lines in the normal position.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".