MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Vs Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt in the Treatment of Hydrocephalus in Children

2010· article· en· W1991474504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyHydrocephalusProportional hazards modelShunt (medical)VentriculostomySurgeryPropensity score matchingSurvival analysisNeurosurgerySurvival rateRelative riskConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief BACKGROUND Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) has preferentially been offered to patients with more favorable prognostic features compared with shunt. OBJECTIVE To use advanced statistical methods to adjust for treatment selection bias to determine whether ETV survival is superior to shunt survival once the bias of patient-related prognostic factors is removed. METHODS An international cohort of children (≤ 19 years of age) with newly diagnosed hydrocephalus treated with ETV (n = 489) or shunt (n = 720) was analyzed. We used propensity score adjustment techniques to account for 2 important patient prognostic factors: age and cause of hydrocephalus. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to compare time-to-treatment failure in an unadjusted model and 3 propensity score—adjusted models, each of which would adjust for the imbalance in prognostic factors. RESULTS In the unadjusted Cox model, the ETV failure rate was lower than the shunt failure rate from the immediate postoperative phase and became even more favorable with longer duration from surgery. Once patient prognostic factors were corrected for in the 3 adjusted models, however, the early failure rate for ETV was higher than that for shunt. It was only after about 3 months after surgery did the ETV failure rate become lower than the shunt failure rate. CONCLUSIONS The relative risk of ETV failure is initially higher than that for shunt, but after about 3 months, the relative risk becomes progressively lower for ETV. Therefore, after the early high-risk period of ETV failure, a patient could experience a long-term treatment survival advantage compared with shunt. It might take several years, however, to realize this benefit. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) has more favorable prognostic features compared with shunt. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ETV survival is superior to shunt survival. METHODS: An international cohort of children (≤ 19 years of age) with newly diagnosed hydrocephalus treated with ETV (n = 489) or shunt (n = 720) was analyzed. We used propensity score adjustment techniques to account for 2 important patient prognostic factors: age and cause of hydrocephalus. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to compare time-to-treatment failure in an unadjusted model and 3 propensity score—adjusted models, each of which would adjust for the imbalance in prognostic factors. RESULTS: In the unadjusted Cox model, the ETV failure rate was lower than the shunt failure rate from the immediate postoperative phase and became even more favorable with longer duration from surgery. Once patient prognostic factors were corrected for in the 3 adjusted models, however, the early failure rate for ETV was higher than that for shunt; about 3 months after surgery the ETV failure rate was lower than the shunt failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk of ETV failure is initially higher than that for shunt, but after about 3 months, the relative risk becomes progressively lower for ETV.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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