Features associated with arteriovenous fistula patency. A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is unclear if cannulation-associated variables such as timing of first cannulation, access creation method, cannulation technique, or needle type are associated with the outcomes of arteriovenous fistulas. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate such potential associations with 1-year primary patency. METHODS: Twenty-eight publications with titles that included "arteriovenous fistula," "patency," "cannulation," "metric," "first cannulation," "hemodialysis," "complication," "vascular," "nursing," and "puncture" were retrieved and reviewed. FINDINGS: The 1-year primary patency rates ranged from 0.32 to 0.93. Primary patency rates were significantly lower in patients in whom initial cannulation was done less than 1.5 months after fistula creation compared to fistulas first cannulated more than 1.5 months after anastomosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.52). The effect of cannulation timing on primary patency rate was attenuated when plastic cannulas were used during the first two to three puncture weeks compared to metal needles (OR = 0.62 vs. 0.34; p = 0.032). Fistulas in the upper arm did not have a higher 1-year primary patency compared to those in the forearm (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.93-1.19). Primary patency of upper arm arteriovenous fistulas was higher in reports from the Americas or Europe compared to reports from Asia. Buttonhole cannulation was not associated with higher patency rates at 1 year compared to rope-ladder cannulation (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.75-1.71). DISCUSSION: Early cannulation was associated with reduced 1-year arteriovenous fistula patency. This association was reduced when plastic cannulas were used during the initial 2-3 weeks.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".