Does the extracorporeal blood flow affect survival of the arteriovenous vascular access?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemodiafiltration with high-convective volumes is associated with improved patient survival, whereby practical realization is contingent on high extracorporeal blood flow (Qb) and dialysis treatment time. However, Qb is restricted by vascular access (VA) quality and/or concerns that high Qb could damage the VA. Taking VA quality into consideration, one can investigate the relationship between Qb and VA survival. We analyzed data from 1039 patients treated by hemodiafiltration over a 21-month period where access blood flow (Qa) measurements were also available at baseline. VA failure was defined as a surgical intervention resulting in the generation of a new VA. Qa was included as a stratification variable within a Cox regression model. A second Cox proportional hazard model with a penalized spline was used to describe the association between Qb and VA survival. Compared with Qb in the 350-357 mL/min range, a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for VA failure was detected for fistula only, and then only for Qb < 312 mL/min (HR: 2.361, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.251-4.453), Qb = 387-397 mL/min (HR: 1.920, 95% CI: 1.007-3.660) and Qb >414 mL/min (HR: 2.207, 95% CI: 1.101-4.424). Age, gender, diabetes, VA vintage, position of the VA, and arterial pressure were not significantly associated with outcome. The form of the penalized spline confirmed higher risk for VA failure for the lowest and the highest values of Qb. Taking Qa into consideration, no association was found between VA failure and Qb up to flows as high as approximately 390 mL/min.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".