Ethanol/Trisodium citrate for hemodialysis catheter lock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objective of this study was to confirm the compatibility of ethanol and 4% trisodium citrate (TSC) for potential use as a catheter locking solution. METHODS: Increasing concentrations of ethanol were combined with 4% TSC in glass test tubes and stored at 37 degrees C over 72 hours. Each tube was visually inspected to determine the highest compatible concentration. To confirm visual compatibility, HPLC analysis was used to compare the concentration of TSC in control solutions (n = 6) to solutions containing both TSC and the highest concentration of ethanol that was visually compatible (n = 6). Compatibility in carbothane hemodialysis catheters was then confirmed in vitro. RESULTS: Results of the compatibility tests indicated that 30% ethanol was the maximum concentration visually compatible with 4% TSC. Ethanol concentrations of 35% or above form a crystalline precipitate in the glass test tubes within 72 hours. HPLC analysis showed no difference in the concentration of TSC in the control solutions compared to the TSC/ethanol solutions when incubated in glass test tubes. A slight, but statistically significant increase in the TSC concentration (1.27%; p < 0.0001) was observed when the ethanol/TSC solution was incubated in carbothane hemodialysis catheters. This slight increase may be due to ethanol absorption into the catheter polymer. Further studies are underway to determine if an ethanol/TSC lock affects the mechanical properties of these carbothane hemodialysis catheters. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that 30% ethanol is compatible with 4% trisodium citrate in carbothane hemodialysis catheters in vitro. Until the lock's affect on carbothane hemodialysis catheters is known, it cannot yet be recommended for clinical use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".