Comparison Between Standard Heparin and Tinzaparin for Haemodialysis Catheter Lock
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tinzaparin offers some advantages over unfractionated heparin (UFH) for hemodialysis circuit anticoagulation. No study has compared these two molecules as hemodialysis catheter locks. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of tinzaparin and UFH as locks for hemodialysis tunnelled central venous catheter in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A randomized, prospective, single-blinded, controlled study was undertaken. Patients were randomly assigned to receive UFH and tinzaparin for two 7-week periods in a crossover fashion. The doses used were 5,000 U of UFH and 2,000 U of tinzaparin per catheter line. The primary outcome was the need for thrombolytic catheter lock use defined with the Hemodialysis Unit alteplase protocol. Forty-two patients with ESRD were enrolled, totalling 815 UFH lock sessions and 729 tinzaparin lock sessions. A 47.4% reduction in the incidence of alteplase lock use was observed with tinzaparin lock (3.16% vs. 6.01%, chi-square, p = 0.0078). There was no significant difference in the time to first alteplase use between the two locks by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (logrank, p = 0.0900). Our results suggest that tinzaparin could be an appropriate alternative for a hemodialysis tunnelled central venous catheter lock, but these results should be confirmed with a larger trial.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it