MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Image-guided central venous catheter placement for apheresis in allogeneic stem cell donors

2000· article· en· W2098992037 on OpenAlexaff
D.J. Sadler, Mary C. McCarthy, John C. Saliken, Benny So, John S. Klassen, S Selinger, Robin R. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Apheresis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApheresisSurgeryCentral venous catheterCatheterPopulationVenous accessInternal medicinePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peripheral blood stem cell harvest by apheresis is an increasingly important procedure utilized in the treatment of many malignancies. Whether autologous or allogeneic, it is frequently performed via peripheral access because of concern over major complications associated with central venous catheter placement. This study was to determine the safety and success, complications and premature failure rates for radiolocally placed ultrasound-guided non-tunneled central venous catheters placed for apheresis in a donor (allogeneic) population. One hundred central venous catheters were placed in ninety-one individuals for allogeneic stem cell harvest. Procedural success and complications relating to placement were noted in all. In 97 cases the number of needle passes required for venous cannulation and whether this was achieved with a single wall puncture was noted. Duration of catheterization and reason for removal were recorded in all cases. All catheters were placed by a right transjugular route. Venous cannulation and functioning line placement was achieved in every case; 92/97 (95%) required only a single needle pass and 84/97 (87%) only a single wall puncture. There were no placement related complications; 94 catheters were removed the same day with the remainder removed within 48 hr. All completed apheresis. Our study demonstrates the safe use of central venous catheters for apheresis in normal donors if ultrasound guidance is used for the puncture and the duration of catheterization is short.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical ApheresisSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207