Hydrocephalus in Apert Syndrome: A Retrospective Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective evaluation was carried out to define the incidence of hydrocephalus and associated factors in 44 patients with Apert syndrome treated at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto over a 22-year period. Forty-three of these patients underwent cranioorbital decompressive procedures within 1 year of birth. Fifteen of 25 (60%) patients who had either a computed tomography scan or pneumoencephalogram had ventriculomegaly, and 3 of the 25 (12%) had associated brain anomalies. Ten of the 44 (23%) patients had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunts placed, 7 lumboperitoneal and 3 ventriculoperitoneal. Six of the shunts were placed early after cranioorbital procedures (CSF leaks in 5 cases and a subgaleal fluid collection in 1 case). The average IQ of 15 patients evaluated by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale was 72.5, indicative of significant intellectual impairment. There was no correlation between IQ and ventricular size. Although hydrocephalus characterized by progressive ventricular dilatation is uncommon in Apert syndrome, postoperative problems related to impaired CSF circulation are common and may indicate an underlying CSF absorptive deficit.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it