Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy in the Treatment of Childhood Hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a model to predict the probability of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) success in the treatment for hydrocephalus on the basis of a child's individual characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed 618 ETVs performed consecutively on children at 12 international institutions to identify predictors of ETV success at 6 months. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed on 70% of the dataset (training set) and validated on 30% of the dataset (validation set). RESULTS: In the training set, 305/455 ETVs (67.0%) were successful. The regression model (containing patient age, cause of hydrocephalus, and previous cerebrospinal fluid shunt) demonstrated good fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P = .78) and discrimination (C statistic = 0.70). In the validation set, 105/163 ETVs (64.4%) were successful and the model maintained good fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P = .45), discrimination (C statistic = 0.68), and calibration (calibration slope = 0.88). A simplified ETV Success Score was devised that closely approximates the predicted probability of ETV success. CONCLUSIONS: Children most likely to succeed with ETV can now be accurately identified and spared the long-term complications of CSF shunting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".