Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Central venous access is essential for patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Traditionally, tunneled silastic catheters have been inserted in these patients. However, changes in resource allocation, resulting in reduced surgery and surgeon time and decreasing toxicity associated with ASCT, have caused changes in venous access needs and options. This led the advanced practice nurse in the transplant program to evaluate other central access devices, which resulted in the introduction of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for this patient population. This study reports the results of a retrospective analysis comparing efficacy and complication profiles between 50 patients with the traditional Hickman catheter and 70 patients with PICCs. Central venous access is essential for patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Traditionally, tunneled silastic catheters have been inserted in these patients. However, changes in resource allocation, resulting in reduced surgery and surgeon time and decreasing toxicity associated with ASCT, have caused changes in venous access needs and options. This led the advanced practice nurse in the transplant program to evaluate other central access devices, which resulted in the introduction of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for this patient population. This study reports the results of a retrospective analysis comparing efficacy and complication profiles between 50 patients with the traditional Hickman catheter and 70 patients with PICCs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.275 | 0.109 |
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".