Bibliographic record
Abstract
We agree with many of the points raised in Dr Nesrallah's polar views paper: (i) the early enthusiasm for and uptake of buttonhole cannulation occurred in the absence of any high-quality evidence evaluating its safety and efficacy; (ii) an increased risk of bacteremia has been consistently observed with buttonhole cannulation; (iii) it remains uncertain whether the strategies outlined by Dr Nesrallah will successfully mitigate this heightened infection risk; (iv) there is no high-quality evidence supporting any benefit of buttonhole cannulation and (v) buttonhole cannulation is declining in many jurisdictions globally because of safety concerns. We also absolutely agree with Dr Nesrallah regarding the importance of patient satisfaction and well-being as clinical outcomes that should receive greater attention in dialysis practice and research. Unfortunately, we do not consider buttonhole cannulation as a true improvement from a patient's point of view. Indeed, and as recognized by Dr Nesrallah, one of the most important patient-relevant outcomes, cannulation-related pain, was not significantly improved in a well-designed Canadian randomized controlled trial (RCT) [1]. Likewise, evidence of potentially improved vascular access survival with buttonhole cannulation mostly relied on one RCT [2], which demonstrated a high risk of attrition bias as well as a higher rate of abandonment in the buttonhole arm. Other RCTs do not support any vascular survival benefit of buttonhole cannulation. Furthermore, recent randomized studies have not demonstrated any clear benefit of buttonhole cannulation with respect to hematoma formation, hemostasis, vascular access intervention or aneurysm formation [1–5]. Interestingly, home hemodialysis patients were cited as a specifically targeted population for buttonhole cannulation in Dr Nesrallah's position paper, reflecting an ingrained belief held by a number of proponents that buttonhole cannulation facilitates home hemodialysis recruitment by increasing a patient's confidence in performing self-cannulation. While this unsubstantiated belief is strongly anchored in numerous home dialysis programs, conversion from buttonhole to rope-ladder cannulation was successfully performed by many home dialysis programs in Australia without an observed decline in their home hemodialysis populations [6]. Finally, we agree with Dr Nesrallah that buttonhole cannulation could still be used in the context of well-conducted randomized controlled studies with infection control strategies or for very selected patients for whom standard cannulation technique has proven unsuccessful due to specific anatomical constraints. Nevertheless, apart from these limited, specific situations, we do not consider buttonhole cannulation as a suitable cannulation approach in either in-center or home hemodialysis patients, as patient safety should never be jeopardized on the basis of uncertain, unproven benefits.
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 | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.166 | 0.090 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.024 |
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".