What Is Single Needle Cannulation Hemodialysis: Is It Adequate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to know the relative clearances obtained when using single-needle versus double-needle cannulation techniques. METHOD: Twelve hemodialysis treatments were conducted using a machine that is capable of single-needle as well as double-needle cannulation. Single-needle and double-needle blood flow rates, as well as urea clearance, were compared. RESULTS: The measured blood flow rates were 368 ± 11 ml/min, 294 ± 4 ml/min, 200 ± 0 ml/min, and 100 ± 0 ml/min during double-needle hemodialysis and were 201 ± 10.9 ml/min, 173 ± 44.9 ml/min, 103 ± 4.1 ml/min, and 45 ± 4.9 ml/min during single-needle hemodialysis. The hemodialysis urea clearances at similar blood flow rate (approximately 200 ml/min) were 167 ± 4 ml/min and 161 ± 9 ml/min (paired t test; p > 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION: The measured blood flow rates and urea clearances during single-needle hemodialysis were approximately half of the measured blood flow rate during double-needle hemodialysis, and should be used in selected settings.
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 | 0.016 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".