MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079735794 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0b013e328365ba53

Pros and cons of catheter lock solutions

2013· review· en· W2079735794 on OpenAlexaff
Vandana Dua Niyyar, Charmaine E. Lok

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacteremiaCatheterMedicineAntithromboticLock (firearm)Intensive care medicineHemodialysis CatheterSurgeryRisk analysis (engineering)Internal medicineEngineeringBiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) and catheter dysfunction are major sources of morbidity and mortality when central venous catheters are used as long-term vascular access in hemodialysis patients. Attempts have been made to minimize these complications by the prophylactic use of catheter locking solutions. This review aims to describe the recent advances in the field of lock solutions and to discuss the benefits and risks associated with the routine use of antimicrobial and/or antithrombotic lock solutions. RECENT FINDINGS: Antithrombotic lock solutions may improve patency and CRB but may be cost-prohibitive. Antimicrobial lock solutions may decrease the incidence of CRB, but their routine use is concerning for the risk of systemic toxicity and the development of resistant organisms. Preliminary results suggest a novel antimicrobial and antithrombotic lock solution may be promising in maintaining patency, while decreasing catheter-related bacteremia. SUMMARY: The ideal catheter lock solution would be one that prevents infections and thrombosis safely and effectively, while being economically viable. Recent developments have led to improvements in the development of catheter locking solutions, but the search for the perfect 'solution' is still ongoing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207