Posters Presentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: An expanding population of elderly patients require haemodialysis.In our centre, wrist fistulae are the preferred primary fistulae and are subsequently revised proximally if necessary.We analysed outcomes after primary fistulae in this patient cohort.Methods: Patients aged 70 or above who had either a primary wrist (WF) or elbow (EF) arteriovenous fistula created between 1st January 2005 and 31st Dec 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database.Results: Primary fistulae were created in 299 (WF) and 12 (EF) patients aged over 70; no arteriovenous grafts were created.74 WF and 2 EF patients remained pre-dialysis and were excluded from further analysis.Of the remainder, 154 (68.4%)WF and 8 (80%) EF patients were already dialysing through a line when the fistula was created.The fistula matured to provide satisfactory haemodialysis in 139 (61.8%) and 6 (60%) in the WF and EF groups, respectively.Median primary patency was 22 months (range 2-96 months) for WF and 35 months (range 3-46 months) for EF.Of this cohort, 46 (33.1%)WF and 2 (33.3%)EF patients subsequently underwent fistula revision.Notably, of the 86 patients whose primary wrist fistula failed to mature, 32 (37.2%) had a further attempt at creating an ipsilateral or contralateral wrist fistula; only 10 had elbow fistulae created.Conclusion: In the elderly dialysis population, acceptable patency rates are achieved following wrist fistula formation and should still be considered the first option.Failure of the first wrist fistula to mature should not preclude formation of a second.Take-home message: In the elderly dialysis population, acceptable patency rates are achieved following wrist fistula formation and should still be considered the first option.Failure of the first wrist fistula to mature should not preclude formation of a second. P02
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.823 | 0.586 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".