MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096308053 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfi281

Haemodialysis vascular access problems in Canada: results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS II)

2005· article· en· W2096308053 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisReferralVascular accessNephrologyProspective cohort studyInternal medicineObservational studyArteriovenous fistulaHemodialysisEmergency medicineSurgeryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal vascular access for chronic maintenance haemodialysis (HD) is the native arteriovenous fistula (AVF). Vascular access practice patterns are reported for a Canadian cohort of patients from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS II). METHODS: DOPPS II is a prospective, observational study in 12 countries, including Canada. A representative random sample of 20 Canadian HD facilities and patients within those units were studied during 2002-2004. Canadian results were compared with those found in Europe and the USA. RESULTS: AVF use in Canadian prevalent (53%) and incident (26%) patients was lower than Canadian guidelines recommend (60%), and lower than in Europe [prevalent (74%), incident (50%)]. Despite 85% of Canadian HD patients having seen a nephrologist for > 1 month prior to starting dialysis, central venous catheter use in Canada (33% in prevalent patients, 70% in incident patients) was much higher than in Europe (prevalent 18%, incident 46%) and slightly higher than in the USA (prevalent 25%, incident 66%). This pattern is contrary to the preferences of Canadian medical directors and vascular access surgeons. The typical time from referral until permanent vascular access creation is substantially longer in Canada (61.7 days) than in Europe (29.4 days) or the USA (16 days). This longer delay time and higher catheter use in Canada may be a consequence of the significantly lower number of access surgeons per 100 HD patients in Canada (2.9) compared with the USA (8.1) and Europe (4.6). Furthermore, the median hours per week devoted to vascular access-related surgery per 100 patients is substantially lower in Canada (0.027 h) compared with the USA (0.082 h) and Europe (0.059 h). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that Canadian chronic HD patients often rely on central venous catheters for vascular access, despite their known association with numerous detrimental outcomes in HD. Nephrologists, vascular access surgeons, interventional radiologists, other physicians and health care funding bodies must be more broadly educated about the priority of AVF creation as the preferred vascular access for chronic HD patients. They must work together to secure both the human and financial resources and other health care system enhancements to increase AVF creation rates in a timely manner.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.294 · 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