Vascular access complications in daily dialysis: a systematic review of the literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients treated for end stage renal disease (ESRD) have a shorter life expectancy and a poorer quality of life than the general population. In an attempt to improve outcomes for this patient population, a few novel therapeutic approaches have been undertaken. With hemodialysis, an increase in dialysis frequency and/or time has been associated with improvements in anemia, left ventricular hypertrophy, hypertension, hyperphosphatemia, nutrition and quality of life. Yet, access to these promising hemodialysis modalities has remained limited. The reasons for this are numerous, but one concern is the potential for more frequent vascular access complications with the increased frequency of cannulation for an arteriovenous fistula/graft and connection for a central venous catheter. In this systematic review of the literature, we identified all published studies that included 10 or more patients on daily hemodialysis and reported quantitative data pertaining to vascular access complications. Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria. The overall complication rates associated with vascular access do not appear to be increased and are perhaps even decreased with daily compared to conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis. Arteriovenous fistulas are the vascular access of choice for daily hemodialysis; however, a non-statistically significant increased complication rate for these accesses was reported in 2 North American studies. The reasons for this are unclear and require further research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".