Impact of arteriovenous fistula cannulation on the quality of dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adequate hemodialysis directly improves health. Puncturing an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and the amount of blood recirculation greatly affect the quality of dialysis. Few studies have assessed the method to cannulate a fistula and its influence on efficiency of hemodialysis. METHODS: This prospective pilot study included 14 patients with end-stage renal failure receiving regular intermittent hemodialysis. Patients received three consecutive treatments with both needles directed upstream then three consecutive treatments with the venous needle directed upstream and the arterial needle directed downstream. With both techniques, the distance between the needles was kept constant at 2.5 cm. Recirculation rate and Kt/V ratio were measured during each treatment using thermodilution and a diascan Fresenius generator. FINDINGS: The 14 patients received 84 hemodialysis sessions: i.e., 8 (57.1%) males and 6 (42.8%) females, mean age 62.3 ± 15.57 years. Results showed that mean recirculation rates and Kt/V did not significantly differ between the two techniques. DISCUSSION: Because no significant difference was found between the two techniques, the direction of insertion of needles should be decided upon on a case-by-case basis depending on the anatomy of the AVF and the feasibility of the puncture.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".