Ascites and abdominal pseudocysts following ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: variations of the same theme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Ascites and abdominal pseudocysts are two complications that can occur following placement of a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt. Although various factors have been implicated, the exact pathogenesis of the two conditions remains elusive. To the authors' knowledge, there are no studies in which these two obviously related conditions have been compared. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the cases of children with abdominal complications caused by a VP shunt. There were 15 patients who developed a pseudocyst and five patients who developed ascites. The cases were analyzed to identify common and distinguishing factors that may help in identifying the mechanism involved. Abdominal symptoms were the mode of presentation for patients with ascites, whereas shunt malfunction was the mode of presentation in 60% of those with pseudocysts. Culture-proven infection, abdominal surgery, and the number of revisions seemed to be more common in cases with pseudocysts than in ascites. The fluid in ascites was found to be a transudate irrespective of the origin of hydrocephalus. Alternative drainage sites were required in the treatment of patients with ascites, and reimplantation in the peritoneum was possible in 66.7% of those with pseudocysts. In the long-term, however, peritoneal reimplantation was possible in three of the five patients with ascites. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal pseudocysts and ascites, after VP shunt treatment, are distinct conditions with different modes of presentation and findings during examination of fluid, and therefore they require different management strategies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".