Risk factors for central venous catheter-related thrombosis in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central venous catheter (CVC) placement is associated with increased risk of thrombosis in the paediatric population, particularly in relation to the type of catheter and the manner of its insertion. Here, we investigate risk factors associated with CVC-related thrombosis in children, with particular emphasis on positioning of the catheter tip. Patients aged 0-18 who underwent at least one CVC placement from 2008 to 2013 at a single centre with a subsequent follow-up echocardiogram were included for a total of 104 patients and 147 lines. Data on clinical and catheter-related risk factors were collected from patient charts. Statistical analysis using Pearson's χ tests, independent samples t-test, and odds ratios were used to assess potential risk factors for thrombosis. Neither insertion site (subclavian vein or otherwise), left- vs. right-sided insertion, nor catheter type were significant risk factors for thrombosis. There were no thrombotic events reported at the superior vena cava (SVC)-right atrium junction and no significant differences in thrombotic risk with initial tip placement in the SVC-right atrium junction vs. the SVC, right atrium, or inferior vena cava. Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was a major clinical risk factor for thrombosis. Tip movement was common and may have been an important factor in the development of CVC-related thrombi. Prospective studies can yield insight into the role of follow-up imaging in the prevention of catheter-related thrombosis in children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".