The development of central venous thrombosis in hemodialyzed patients is associated with catheter tip depth and localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of our work was to analyze the incidence of tunneled hemodialysis catheters-related thrombosis in hemodialyzed patients depending on catheter tip depth and position and to evaluate the impact of other established risk factors responsible for development of central venous thrombosis. METHODS: The presence of central vein thrombosis, location, and the depth of the catheter tip was reviewed by two experienced radiologists. All patients with suspected central venous thrombosis had factor V Leiden, lupus anticoagulant, and cardiolipin antibodies checked (acIgM and acIgG) and were evaluated with cat-scan venography. FINDINGS: A total of 68 tunneled hemodialysis catheters were analyzed with CT venography for central venous thrombosis. There were no signs of central venous thrombosis when catheter tips were placed in the right atrium. There was significantly higher number of catheter tips located on the vein wall than located centrally in patients with central venous thrombosis. Higher percentage of central venous thrombosis, smaller number of tips placed in the right atrium, higher values of IgM cardiolipin antibodies, and higher number of patients with positive factor V Leiden mutation were found in group of patients with catheter tips located on vein wall. DISCUSSION: Higher incidence of central venous thrombosis in patients with the catheter tip placed on the vein wall is a consequence of a catheter tip depth proximal of the right atrium. Increased factor V Leiden mutation and acIgM values in these patients should be observed as a result of the vein stasis caused by inappropriate catheter tip depth and localization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".