Effect of needles distance of arteriovenous fistula cannulation on hemodialysis adequacy based on KT/V: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aims to assess the effect of needle distance of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation on haemodialysis adequacy based on KT/V. Materials and methods: This study was a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups with 3 and 6 cm needle distances using block randomization. Data acquisition transpired through a comprehensive checklist encompassing demographic variables such as age and sex, alongside clinical metrics comprising actual weight, dry weight, average dialysis duration, fistula longevity, and KT/V rate. Results: A total of 42 haemodialysis patients were enroled in this investigation, with 21 allocated to the 3 cm needle distance group and another 21 to the 6 cm needle distance group. The mean post-haemodialysis KT/V values for the 3 cm and 6 cm needle distance groups were 1.25 (SD=0.25) and 1.42 (SD=0.24), respectively, demonstrating a statistically significant difference ( P <0.001). While there was no significant difference in the average pre-haemodialysis and post-haemodialysis KT/V values within the 3 cm needle distance group ( t =1.93, P =0.068), the corresponding values for the 6 cm needle distance group exhibited a notable discrepancy ( t =9.66, P <0.001). Conclusion: In general, a needle distance of 6 cm between arteriovenous points yielded superior enhancements in dialysis adequacy compared to a 3 cm needle distance following haemodialysis. Consequently, health administrators and policymakers may consider instituting efficacious interventions to scrutinize the care and therapeutic protocols for haemodialysis patients, involving the development of policies and applications.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".