MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Routine Ultrasound Studies of the Vascular Access in a Dialysis Center: A Review

2004· review· en· W2142552641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oscar Cairoli

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVascular accessFistulaDialysisHemodialysisArteriovenous fistulaSurgeryHeelTechnician

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment and maintenance of vascular access in end‐stage renal disease provides a greater challenge. Adequate dialytic therapy requires reliable, long‐term access to the blood circulation. Vascular access remains the Achilles' heel of chronic hemodialysis; complications are costly for the patient and society. Vascular access failure is the most frequent cause of hospitalization for patients with chronic renal disease. The general goal was to prevent thrombectomies, thus preventing hospitalizations and reducing cost, and most importantly, saving the patient's access and increasing the survival rate of the graft or fistula. A protocol to evaluate the vascular accesses at the dialysis centers where our patients are dialyzing was implemented. The patients are evaluated before their dialysis treatments, every 2 months if they have a graft and every other visit (4 months) if they have a fistula. New patients will be evaluated every visit by the vascular technician. The protocol (US Vascular Access Protocol) also has attention parameters and depth considerations. The attention parameters refers to blood flows and reductions in size. For example, for a fistula, a normal flow will be 400 mL/min or above, an alert value will be 390 mL/min or below, and a reduction in size of 1.9 mm or below will also be an alert value for the fistula ( Table I ). Depth considerations relate to how deep the access is, for example 2–3 mm is ideal to cannulate, 8 mm and above make cannulation impossible ( Table II ). Patients with vascular problems are then referred to the vascular surgeon or, as mostly, are referred to interventional radiology. We have found that these Doppler reports are very accurate, and after almost a year, doing these tests at the dialysis center, many accesses have been saved, and dialysis quality has improved in those patients by resolving issues causing re‐circulation, stenosis, etc. In conclusion, we need to continue evaluating this program, but the preliminary reports show that by using the Doppler studies prophylactically, dialysis accesses can be saved or their use prolonged, thereby saving costs and reducing the need for future sites for the patient. And, in some cases, improving dialysis adequacy. Attention parameters Normal values Alert values Fistula Access volume flow (mL/min) ≥400 0–390 Reductions (mm) ≥2.0 0–1.9 Graft Access volume flow (mL/min) ≥600 0–590 Reductions (%) 0–49 50–100 Depth considerations 2–3 mm Ideal and easy to cannulate 4–5 mm Is acceptable 6–7 mm Increases difficulty of cannulation and increases vessel wall damage ≥8 mm Makes cannulation difficult‐to‐impossible, causes significant wall damage and infiltrations, requires longer cannula

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→