MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142968294 · doi:10.2215/cjn.01690213

Vascular Access Morbidity and Mortality

2013· review· en· W2142968294 on OpenAlexaff
Charmaine E. Lok, Robert N. Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVascular accessHemodialysisDialysisCatheterArteriovenous fistulaDialysis catheterCentral venous catheterHemodialysis accessFistulaSurgeryMortality rateInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decade, clear trends in the types of incident and prevalent hemodialysis vascular access can be observed. There has been a steady increase and recent stabilizaton of patients initiating hemodialysis with a central venous catheter, representing approximately 80% of all incident accesses. There has also been a steady increase in prevalent fistula use, currently greater than 50% within 4 months of hemodialysis initiation. Patient and vascular access related morbidity and mortality are reflected in the type of vascular access used at initiation and for long-term maintenance dialysis. There is a three- to fourfold increase in risk of infectious complications in patients initiating dialysis with a catheter compared with either a fistula or graft and a sevenfold higher risk when the catheter is used as a prevalent access. Procedure rates have increased two- to threefold for all types of access. There is a significant increased risk of mortality associated with catheter use, especially within the first year of dialysis initiation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations231
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207