A simple method to create buttonhole cannulation tracks in a busy hemodialysis unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preference for fistulae as the hemodialysis access of choice has led to a significant number of accesses that are less than ideal for cannulation. Buttonhole cannulation is ideal for such accesses, but the technique for creation provides major challenges. In 12 patients, buttonhole tunnel tracks were created by leaving the polyurethane catheter of a Clampcath hemodialysis needle indwelling for 10 days after the initial cannulation. After each dialysis the catheter was flushed, and dressed with an antibacterial ointment and gauze. Dialysis was carried out via the catheter during that time. After day 10, the catheter was removed, the tunnel track covered with an antibacterial dressing and the tunnel track was cannulated with a dull buttonhole needle at the next dialysis. Successful buttonhole accesses were created in 11 patients after 10 days, the 12th patient required a single sharp needle cannulation before using dull needles. During the first 2 weeks of dull needle cannulation both pain experienced on cannulation and the difficulty cannulating the access were significantly less than in the classical buttonhole technique (P<0.01). Complications during the follow-up period (6 months-1.5 years) included difficulty cannulating with a dull needle (22) and antibacterial agent induced contact dermatitis (4). There was no episode of sepsis or tunnel track infection. Initial cannulation of the fistula using a Clampcath hemodialysis needle, leaving the polyurethane catheter indwelling for 10 days, is a simple, safe, and effective technique for the creation of buttonhole tunnel tracks.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".