Dynamical Morphology of the Brain′s Ventricular Cavities in Hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although interest in the biomechanics of the brain goes back over centuries, mathematical models of hydrocephalus and other brain abnormalities are still in their infancy and a much more recent phenomenon. This is rather surprising, since hydrocephalus is still an endemic condition in the pediatric population with an incidence of approximately 1–3 per 1000 births. Treatment has dramatically improved over the last three decades, thanks to the introduction of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunts. Their use, however, is not without problems and the shunt failure at two years remains unacceptably high at 50%. The most common factor causing shunt failure is obstruction, especially of the proximal catheters. There is currently no agreement among neurosurgeons as to the optimal catheter tip position; however, common sense suggests that the lowest risk location is the place that remains larger after ventricular decompression drainage. Thus, success in this direction will depend on the development of a quantitative theory capable of predicting the ultimate shape of the ventricular wall. In this paper, we report on some recent progress towards the solution to this problem.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".