Punción del acceso vascular mediante catéter-fístula: efecto sobre el dolor del paciente y la adecuación de hemodiálisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The use of new needle designs for VA puncture may improve the quality of life of patients (pts) and the parameters of HD efficacy. Objectives:To evaluate whether there are differences in the intensity of the pain perceived by the pts and HD adequacy (Kt Index) after brachial arteriovenous fistula (AVF) puncture through catheter-fistula (CF) or standard needling (SN). Patients and methods: We performed a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized study during 2 months (24 HD sessions) to compare needling by CF (cases) versus SN (controls) in prevalent HD pts dialyzed by brachial AVF. The same patient was the case and the control when the CF (12 sessions) and the conventional 15G needle (12 sessions) were used, respectively. The CF is a biocompatible puncture cannula composed by an internal metal needle intended to AVF puncture and an external fluroplastic catheter (15G) that remains inside the arterialized vein. The pain related either with needling or with needle withdrawal was quantified using a validated visual analogue scale (VAS) and the ShortForm McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Results: We analyzed 14 prevalent HD pts (mean age 68.4 +/- 10.43 years; 71% male; 28.6 % diabetic nephropathy; mean time on HD 36.57 +/- 18.28 months) dialyzed by brachiocephalic (50%), brachiobasilic (21%) or brachioperforating (29%) fistula. During both needling and needle withdrawal, the VAS was significant lower for CF (2.07 +/- 0.73 and 0,76 +/- 0,39) compared to SN (2.88 +/- 0.99 and 1.85 +/- 0.95) (for both comparisons, p < 0,001).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".