LATE EXTERNAL PERITONEAL LEAKAGE IN CAPO PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir: I read with interest the letter from Beaman et al (1) concerning anterior abdominal wall leakage in CAPD patients. They described late leakage, which presented as abdominal-wall edema and responded to IPO. I would like to describe five patients with a late leakage, that presented externally. Their age was 45 to 57 (mean 51) years. One of the five had the Toronto Western HospitalII-catheter, three a single-cuff Tenckhoff, and one a double-cuff Tenckhoff catheter (5). This complication is said to be particularly common among CAPD patients with diabetes mellitus, with polycystic kidneys, and with previous abdominal operations (2, 4). None of our five patients had any of these conditions. As described in the literature treatment of this complication includes: a) Decrease in the dialysate volume, b) interruption of CAPO and transfer to hemodialysis, c) replacement of the catheter, d) removal of the catheter and implantation of a new one, e) CCPD with small volumes and f) transfer to IPD for seven to 10 days (3). In our patients, interruption of CAPO and institution oflPO for 10 to 14 days corrected this complication and the patients have been free of symptoms for an average period of six months. I propose that this approach is effective not only for late leakage manifesting as abdominal wall edema, but also for late external leakage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".