Inserting tunnelled hemodialysis catheters using elective guidewire exchange from nontunnelled catheters: Is there a greater risk of infection when compared with new‐site replacement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective is to evaluate bacteremia outcomes and survival rates when using guidewire exchange to place tunnelled hemodialysis catheter (THDC) compared with a new-site replacement. Retrospectively, all patients were identified who received a THDC between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2007. Any THDC having received antibiotic line locks or tunnel-to-tunnel exchange were excluded. This left 408 THDC placed in 329 patients: 46 guidewire exchange, 362 new-site replacement. Bacteremia rate from the new-site insertion group was 3.0 per 1000 catheter days, the guidewire exchange group demonstrated a rate of 2.8 per 1000 catheter days. Local infection rates did not differ between the groups at 1.2 per 1000 catheters days. The actuarial catheter survival rates using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated no difference between the 2 groups. The placing of tunnelled cuffed hemodialysis catheters to replace temporary catheters using a guidewire exchange did not contribute to further episodes of sepsis and has the advantage of preserving venous access and minimizing invasive procedures for the patient.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".