Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surgical management of hydrocephalus has undergone incredible changes over the past generation of neurosurgeons, including dramatic improvements in imaging, especially computed tomographic scanning and magnetic resonance imaging, and remarkably innovative advances in cerebrospinal fluid valve technology, complex computer models, and endoscopic equipment and techniques. In terms of overall patient outcomes, however, one could conclude that things are a little better, but "not much." This frustrating yet fascinating dichotomy between technological advancements and clinical outcomes makes hydrocephalus, first described by the ancients, as one of the most understated and complex disorders that neurosurgeons treat. The challenge to the next generation of neurosurgeons is to solve this vexing problem through better understanding of the basic science, improved computer models, additional technological advances, and, most importantly, a broad-based, concerted multidisciplinary attack on this disorder. This review focuses on the evolution of surgery for hydrocephalus over the last 30 years, the current state of the art of hydrocephalus treatment, and what appear to be the most promising future directions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".