MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980427053 · doi:10.1159/000120557

Mechanical Complications in Shunts

2008· article· en· W1980427053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Sainte‐Rose, Joseph H. Piatt, Dominique Rénier, Alain Pierre‐Kahn, J F Hirsch, Harold J. Hoffman, R. P. Humphreys, E. Bruce Hendrick

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Neurosurgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)SurgeryHydrocephalusCatheterOcclusionComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retrospective study was conducted on 1,719 hydrocephalic patients, treated between 1974 and 1983 at the Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto) and l'Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Paris), in order to better understand shunt failure. The statistical analysis demonstrates the following: (1) A probability of occurrence of shunt malfunction of 81% at 12 years of follow-up. (2) A high prevalence of shunt obstruction (56.1% of all malfunction) and fracture or disconnection of the tubings (13.6%). (3) A higher risk of proximal occlusion with flanged ventricular catheter. (4) Less malfunction with proximal-non-slit valves as compared to distal-slit valves. (5) The importance of pressure-flow characteristics of the shunt; because of an indirect relation between overdrainage and proximal occlusion. (6) A correlation between connectors and migration or fracture of the shunt. (7) Less distal obstructions when an open-ended distal-catheter was used. These complications were of some clinical, psychological and economical consequences. Their rate could be lowed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations416
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric NeurosurgerySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207