MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604058415 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174061

Endoluminal dilatation for embedded hemodialysis catheters: A case-control study of factors associated with embedding and clinical outcomes

2017· article· en· W2604058415 on OpenAlexaff
Hari Talreja, Stephen E. Ryan, Janet Graham, Manish M. Sood, Adnan Hadziomerovic, Edward G. Clark, Swapnil Hiremath

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisMedicineHemodialysis CatheterIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the increasing frequency of tunneled hemodialysis catheter use there is a parallel increase in the need for removal and/or exchange. A small but significant minority of catheters become embedded or 'stuck' and cannot be removed by traditional means. Management of embedded catheters involves cutting the catheter, burying the retained fragment with a subsequent increased risk of infections and thrombosis. Endoluminal dilatation may provide a potential safe and effective technique for removing embedded catheters, however, to date, there is a paucity of data. OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine factors associated with catheters becoming embedded and 2) to determine outcomes associated with endoluminal dilatation. METHODS: All patients with endoluminal dilatation for embedded catheters at our institution since Jan. 2010 were included. Patients who had an embedded catheter were matched 1:3 with patients with uncomplicated catheter removal. Baseline patient and catheter characteristics were compared. Outcomes included procedural success and procedure-related infection. Logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with embedded catheters. RESULTS: We matched 15 cases of embedded tunneled catheters with 45 controls. Among patients with embedded catheters, there were no complications with endoluminal dilatation. Factors independently associated with embedded catheters included catheter dwell time (> 2 years) and history of central venous stenosis. CONCLUSION: Embedded catheters can be successfully managed by endoluminal dilatation with minimal complications and factors associated with embedding include dwell times > 2 years and/or with a history of central venous stenosis.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207