A Comparison of CV-Catheters (CV) Grafts (GR) and Fistulae (FI) in Quotidian Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied longevity and complications from CV, GR, and FI in 23 patients on quotidian hemodialysis. There were a total of 409 patient months, mean 18–10 months observation and a total of 9209 dialyses. There were 14 FI, 5 GR and 4 CV. 1, 1 and 2 replacements were necessary during a total observation time of 254, 105 and 50 patient months, respectively. For fistulae there were 0.02 replacements/year vs. 0.30 for GR and 0.41 for CV. P = 0.042 FI vs. other. The cumulative survival at 15 months was 100% for FI, 80% for GR and 20% for CV. P = 0.041. The cumulative survival at 3 years were 80% for fistulae and grafts, no CV lasted beyond 15 months. P = 0.013. There were 27 events requiring hospitalization or outpatient intervention. FI: 0.42/patient year, GR 1.22/patient year and CV 1.36/patient year. P = 0.080, FI vs. Other. Patients reported more problems between dialysis for FI, 3.2% of the days and least on GR (0.2%), CV (0.4%). P < 0.0001. Of the problems 85% were pain and redness. To the contrary there were more problems during dialysis with CV, 9.1% vs. FI 2.7%, and GR 0.9%. P < 0.0001. The complications and survival data are similar to those reported by others for quotidian hemodialysis and no different from reports on conventional 3 times per week dialyses. Conclusion: Daily hemodialysis does not adversely affect the different types of blood access. The survival and intervention need of accesses is best for fistulae, worst for CV, but GR, when functioning, have fewer problems between and during dialyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".