A Single Center Study of Clinical Success in Radiocephalic Fistula Creation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare standard methods (control) with a new protocol for radiocephalic fistula (RCF) creation involving ultrasound vein mapping by the surgeon in the operating room, ligation of cephalic vein branches in the lower forearm, and use of a tourniquet for the arteriovenous anastomosis. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radiocephalic fistula creation between April 2008 and March 2010 in a regional vascular center. Patients were identified retrospectively by reviewing hospital operating room and office billing records. The electronic charts of all patients were reviewed. The primary endpoint was functional RCF patency at last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients underwent arteriovenous (AV) fistula creation by 3 surgeons during the two-year study period. Of these, 59 patients underwent RCF creation, 33 of whom were managed using the new protocol. The two groups were comparable, except for age (66 in the study group vs. 60 in the control group, P=.04). Tourniquet use shortened operative time from 48 to 36 minutes (P=.04). Functional patency was 82% vs 77% (P=.64). CONCLUSION: The new protocol for RCF creation results in shorter operative times and high functional patency rates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".