Overview of the use of implantable venous access devices in the management of children with inherited bleeding disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent infusion of factor concentrates may be challenging in young boys with haemophilia, especially if their disease is complicated by inhibitors. A central venous access device (CVAD) is often placed in young patients in need of repeated infusions for prophylaxis or immune tolerance induction. Although user friendly and capable of providing reliable venous access, these devices are associated with a high complication rate over time. In the haemophilia population, major complications include CVAD-associated infections and deep venous thrombosis, which is most often silent. Established risk factors for catheter-related infection include age less than 6 years at the time of CVAD placement and use of an external CVAD when compared with a totally implantable device such as a port. Avoidance of CVAD-related infections is facilitated by strict adherence to aseptic technique. The risk of deep venous thrombosis appears related to the duration for which the catheter is in place, with the risk increasing beyond 4 years. The promotion of a strict clinic policy in which CVADs are left in place for as short a time as possible should decrease the risk of complications. In rare cases where a totally implantable CVAD cannot be placed for technical reasons, an arteriovenous fistula may provide reliable venous access. In all cases, however, venous access via peripheral veins is preferred over CVADs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".