Vascular access in Senegalese patients starting chronic haemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is recommended that patients should start chronic haemodialysis using an arteriovenous fistula (AVF). We aimed to determine the proportion of Senegalese patients who used an AVF at the start of haemodialysis and examined the factors associated with its use. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study from 1 June 2021 to 2 October 2021 among patients on chronic haemodialysis in 10 centres in the Dakar and Thiès regions. Clinical and laboratory data were collected from medical records and also via patient interviews. Results: The patients (n = 543) had a median age of 50 years [interquartile range (IQR) 40–62 years] and 50.6% were male. The socio-economic level was low in two-thirds of cases. The median duration of haemodialysis was 40 (IQR 17–76) months. Hypertension was noted in 92% and diabetes in 13%. Hypertensive kidney disease was the cause of kidney failure in 33%. Only 47 patients (9%) had started dialysis using an arteriovenous fistula. Factors associated with its use at haemodialysis initiation were socio-economic level (OR 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25–0.94 for low socio-economic level) and duration of pre-dialysis follow-up by a nephrologist for >4 months (OR 7.82; 95% CI 3.05–26.50). In 65% of prevalent patients, the vascular access used was an AVF, a tunnelled central venous catheter in 28%, an arteriovenous graft in 2% and a temporary central venous catheter in 4.4%. Conclusions: The proportion of Senegalese patients with an AVF at the start of haemodialysis was low. AVF use was associated with socio-economic level and pre-dialysis follow-up by a nephrologist for >4 months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".