Preliminary Results from the Use of New Vascular Access (Hemaport) for Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important factors for an optimal chronic hemodialysis is a well- functioning vascular access. Still the A-V-fistula is the best alternative. When repeated failures arise new access alternatives are needed. The Hemaport combines a PTFE-graft with a percutaneous housing of titan. Starting and stopping the dialysis session is simple and needle-free. The first clinical experiences are presented. Thirteen patients (m-age 60 years) in 6 centres had used the Hemaport system. Out of 11 functioning devices 7 were placed on the upper arm and 4 were located on the thigh. The total days in observation were 2.156 days with 769 dialysis sessions performed. Six patients had used the Hemaport system for more than 6 months. Mean blood flow was 364, range 100–450 ml/min with a mean venous and arterial pressure of 100 mm Hg, range 30–250, and 16 mm Hg respectively, range − 140 to + 259. Thrombosis interventions have been required in 14 percent to obtain a functioning vascular access. Two patients contributed with more than half of these events. Mechanical or pharmacological thrombolysis can be performed through the Hemaport dialysis lid without open surgery. Six implants have been removed and in 5 of these cases a new Hemaport was implanted. The reasons for removing the device were related to insufficient vascular flow, thrombosis, and/or infection.In patients with repeated access problems, a new vascular access (Hemaport) has been clinically used for about 1 year. By its design, Hemaport offers a novel approach.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".