MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050497641 · doi:10.1159/000120526

Effect of Subcutaneous Implantation of Anti-Siphon Devices on CSF Shunt Function

2008· article· en· W2050497641 on OpenAlexaff
Marcia C. da Silva, James M. Drake

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Neurosurgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)Siphon (mollusc)Cerebrospinal fluidSurgeryInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anti-siphon devices (ASD) were initially bench tested at flow rates between 10 and 50 cm3/h and with the distal catheter height between 0 and -60 cm. There was a small increase in pressure with increased flow rate in the horizontal position (p less than 0.001). The inflow pressure initially dropped with the distal catheter height at -20 cm; it then rose progressively with distal catheter heights of -40 and -60 cm (p less than 0.001). To determine the effect of ambient pressure the devices were placed in a barometric chamber at pressures between -200 and +200 mm H2O. Positive pressures caused a linear increase in inflow pressure; negative chamber pressure reduced the anti-siphon effect. Eight ASDs were implanted subcutaneously in piglets and tested in situ weekly for 4 weeks. Implantation caused a mean increase in inflow pressure of 93.5 mm H2O 7 days after implantation (p less than 0.001) and which persisted for 4 weeks. Incision of the capsule surrounding the ASD at the end of 4 weeks caused a drop in pressure. The capsule consisted of an outer layer of collagen fibres with an inner layer of histiocytes. Subcutaneous implantation of ASDs causes an increase in the ambient pressure of the device which significantly increases their resistance to flow.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric NeurosurgerySame topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207