Efficacy of alteplase 1 <i>versus</i> 2 mg dose in restoring haemodialysis catheter function (Alte‐dose 2): A randomized double‐blind controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Data about the optimal alteplase dose required to treat haemodialysis catheter occlusion (HDC) are scarce. The purpose of the clinical trial was to examine the effectiveness of alteplase 2 mg as compared with 1 mg in restoring HDC function. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in a single-centre in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Rate of clot resolution, catheter replacements, catheter stripping, and mean catheter survival time were assessed using Kaplan-Meier, Cox-proportional hazard and clustered logic regression analyses. RESULTS: On a sample of 48 haemodialysis patients who provided 252 catheter occlusion events, the rate of clot resolution at the catheter site in the 2 mg group was 85.7% as opposed to 84.9% in the 1 mg group. There were only six catheter removals and 10 catheter stripping events. Cox regression analysis revealed no difference between the two groups in the hazard of occlusion on the primary 48 observations after the initial alteplase management (P = 0.267; hazard ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.3). Correlated logistic regression on all 252 observations indicated no difference in the rate of post alteplase clot resolution (P = 0.336; odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval 0.399-14.6) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Alteplase 1 mg is as effective as 2 mg in restoring HDC malfunction and may result in cost reduction in haemodialysis units.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".