The Toronto Western Hospital Catheter: One Center's Experience and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report our center's experience with the Toronto Western Hospital (TWH) catheter, and discuss our catheter survival and complication rates. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis therapy via a TWH catheter. Catheter complication rates of peritonitis, exit site infection, obstruction, leak, and malfunction were assessed. A catheter was considered failed if removed because of exit site infection, obstruction, or malfunction. All other catheters, even if removed for other reasons, were considered censured. Survival was defined as the period from insertion to failure or censure date, and reported using Kaplan Meier analysis. RESULTS: 192 patients with a total of 208 TWH catheters (4,845.3 catheter months) were analyzed. Our overall 1- and 3-year catheter survival rates were identical at 0.9182. Our catheter complication rates (expressed as number of catheter months per event) were 31.3 for peritonitis, 42.9 for exit site infection, 72.3 for obstruction, 538.4 for malfunction, and 969.1 for catheter leak. Our findings were similar to those reported in the literature for TWH and other peritoneal catheters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".