MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403832533 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024sbzpw59k

Vascular Access Survival with Thrice-Weekly, In-Center, Nocturnal Haemodialysis

2024· article· en· W4403832533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine L. Hull, Ann Bugeja, Matthew Graham‐Brown, Lindsay Ann Reid, Aiden Smith, Brigit C. van Jaarsveld, James O. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCenter (category theory)NocturnalVascular accessMedicineHemodialysisInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study explores vascular access complications in patients established on in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) compared to conventional haemodialysis. Methods: Retrospective cohort study with patients acting as their own control. Data were collected from: Leicester Renal Network, UK (project number 12494) and The Ottawa Hospital, Canada (project number 20230336-01H). Adults established on INHD (intervention period) preceded by usual daytime in-centre haemodialysis (control period) with an established vascular access were eligible. Data were collected between 01/01/2009-31/12/2021. The primary outcome measure was a composite of outcomes due to vascular access complication: hospitalisation, intervention, change in vascular access modality, change in dialysis modality and death. The primary outcome was evaluated by time-to-event rate in days using Kaplan-Meier plots. Statistical significance was accepted at P<0.05. Results: 123 individuals were included (UK, n=66; Canada, n=57). The mean age was 51.2 years (±17.0), 69.1% (n=85) were male, 56.1% (n=69) were white. There was no difference in the primary outcome for the intervention period (n=33, 26.8%) and the control period (n=31, 25.2%): P=0.868. The 12-month vascular access survival probability was 69.8% (95%CI 61.0–78.6%) for the intervention period and 70.5% (95%CI 61.5-79.5%) for the control period (Figure 1). During the intervention period, arteriovenous grafts were associated with lower vascular access survival (P<0.001), and during the control period, regular vitamin K antagonist use was associated with lower vascular access survival (P=0.002). Conclusion: Vascular access type and use of regular anticoagulation were associated with a reduced vascular access survival probability. There does not appear to be an increased risk to vascular access survival and safety for INHD compared to conventional haemodialysis.Figure 1 – Kaplan-Meier plot demonstrating vascular access time-to-event rate

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→