Indwelling Peritoneal Catheters for Managing Malignancy-Associated Ascites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated use of the tunnelled catheter in a large palliative population with malignancy-associated ascites employing retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained patient database of tunnelled peritoneal catheter insertions for refractory malignancy-associated ascites or new rapidly accumulating ascites. We found that a 100 percent procedural success rate was achieved with 395 tunnelled catheters inserted in 386 patients. Catheters remained in situ for 66 days, on average. In a total of 22 cases (5.57 percent), complications developed. Nonfatal infections occurred most commonly--in 15 cases (3.80 percent). Ascites stopped reaccumulating in 16 cases (4.05 percent), leading to catheter removal. The mean Baseline Dyspnea Index was 3.79 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 3.64-3.94); the mean Transitional Dyspnea Index postinsertion was 5.14 (95 percent CL, 4.94-5.34). In all, 13 patients completed serial European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires. Postinsertion, overall quality of life improved significantly (p < 0.05), as did all functional domains and fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and appetite symptoms. The tunnelled peritoneal catheter is feasible and safe and causes minimal complications. Its use results in significant improvement in dyspnea and improvement in overall quality of life for a small number of patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".