MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291676239 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6808577

Overview of hemodialysis access and assessment

2022· review· en· W4291676239 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rohan Arasu, Dev Jegatheesan, Yogeesan Sivakumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHemodialysisData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide family physicians with an evidence-based overview on the various methods of vascular access for hemodialysis (HD) and to provide a framework for the clinical assessment of HD access. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: ), including all relevant English-language articles published between January 1995 and September 2021. MAIN MESSAGE: The main types of permanent vascular access for HD are arteriovenous fistulas, arteriovenous grafts, and central venous catheters. A pragmatic, patient-centred approach is required when choosing the type of access for an individual. Common complications of vascular access creation include thrombosis, central venous stenosis, dialysis access steal syndrome, and arteriovenous fistula aneurysms. CONCLUSION: Family physicians play an important role in the clinical assessment and monitoring of HD vascular access. A thorough clinical assessment can detect a failing arteriovenous fistula and any associated complications, which can allow for prompt investigation and intervention to restore functionality, maintain access longevity, and improve patient quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207