Recanalization of Chronic Refractory Central Venous Occlusions Utilizing a Radiofrequency Guidewire Perforation Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the technical success rate and safety of radiofrequency perforation guidewire (RF) technology for the recanalization of refractory chronic central venous occlusions in symptomatic hemodialysis patients with failed conventional endovascular methods. METHODS: This single center retrospective cohort of hemodialysis patients comprised of six men (mean age 67 years, range 55 to 80) with autogenous fistulae, who had already undergone failed conventional endovascular methods. These patients underwent the RF perforation technique from December 2006 to January 2010. RESULTS: Three patients were successfully treated using the RF perforation technique, after which they had PTFE stent grafts placed at the site of occlusion. There was no recurrence of clinical symptoms. In the remaining three patients, the procedure was terminated after multiple unsuccessful attempts. There were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: The RF perforation technique is a potential alternative technology for recanalization of refractory chronic central venous occlusions in hemodialysis patients in the setting of failed conventional endovascular recanalization techniques.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".