Shorter break‐in period is a viable option with tighter PD catheter securing during the insertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent single-arm studies reported good catheter outcome despite shorter break-in periods after peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertions. These results were attributed to tight catheter securing during the insertions. OBJECTIVE: To compare catheter-related outcomes after different break-in periods in the tightly secured PD catheters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised 48 patients, who underwent catheter insertions with the modified insertion technique. Based on the duration of break-in period, the patients were grouped into a shorter break-in period arm, with break-in period of 7 days or less and a standard break-in period arm, with break-in period of about 2 weeks. Mean patient follow up was 9.68 +/- 4.35 months, with a similar follow-up duration between the two break-in period arms (P = 0.94). RESULTS: In the study cohort, the incidence of pericatheter leaks, pericatheter haemorrhage, catheter malfunction and peritonitis was 2/48 (4%), 1/48 (2%), 1/48 (2%) and 3/48 (6%), respectively. There was no other-site leak, bowel perforation, hernia formation or wound dehiscence. Of these complications, two pericatheter leaks, one catheter malfunction and three peritonitis episodes followed standard break-in periods, whereas, one pericatheter haemorrhage occurred in the shorter break-in period arm. CONCLUSION: After a tight catheter securing during the insertions, overall pericatheter leak incidence remained low in the whole study cohort, and it did not worsen despite a shorter break-in period. Future studies with larger patient numbers are needed to validate the role of shorter break-in period in PD practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".