Peripheral vascular access for therapeutic plasma exchange: A practical approach to increased utilization and selecting the most appropriate vascular access
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is used in the treatment of many diseases. At present, peripheral vascular access (PVA) is an underutilized method of vascular access in TPE. It should be considered more frequently due its relatively low risk for adverse events, particularly infections. METHODS: The Advancing Vascular Access in Apheresis Working Group met in December 2017 for an extensive review and discussion of vascular access for TPE and developed a "road map" providing detailed information regarding clinical situations in which PVA-based TPE would and would not be appropriate. RESULTS: The road map is consistent with current recommendations that PVA should be used in combination with TPE whenever possible. PVA should be considered for patients who do not have existing central lines and who are stable. The patient should have peripheral veins that will allow for adequate treatment and must be able to comply with the process of achieving and maintaining peripheral access. There should be expert clinical assessment of veins, and this evaluation may include ultrasound and/or near infrared evaluation. Conditions that would prompt a switch from PVA to an alternate method of venous access include loss of venous access, patient preference, or development of a requirement for very frequent treatment over a long period of time. CONCLUSIONS: While PVA is not suitable for all patients requiring TPE, it has significant safety advantages over other approaches and should be employed whenever possible.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it