Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for treatment of adult hydrocephalus: long-term followup with 163 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Treatment of specific patterns of symptomatic hydrocephalus in the adult patient may be accomplished with endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) as an alternative to insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt. This review examines a single center experience with ETV to treat hydrocephalus in symptomatic adult patients. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of hydrocephalus who were treated with ETV in Calgary between January 1994 and July 2014 were reviewed using a clinic database and registry. Results: 163 patients were identified (male=92; female=71). Mean age at the time of ETV was 46.5 years (range 18-83.4 years). 118 underwent ETV as a primary treatment and 45 patients underwent treatment after presenting with VP shunt failure (secondary ETV). 113/163 patients had a diagnosis of aqueductal stenosis, 22/163 had a diagnosis of tumor. Mean followup was 8.2 years (range 0.3-18.4 years). Symptoms in 149/163 (91.4%) of ETV patients were better or unchanged at last followup. 104/118 (88.1%) of primary ETV patients were shunt free at last followup. 39/45 (86.7%) of secondary ETV patients were shunt free at last followup. Conclusion: Endoscopic (ETV) treatment is an effective long-term treatment for a select population of adult patients with hydrocephalus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".