MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073421529 · doi:10.3171/ped.2006.105.2.154

Gelfoam obstruction of endoscopic third ventriculostomy

2006· article· en· W2073421529 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Edwards, Peter B. Dirks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyVentriculostomySurgeryEndoscopyGeneral surgeryHydrocephalus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This 2-year-old boy underwent an endoscopic third ventriculostomy. He had a 3-week history of vomiting and ataxia due to obstructive hydrocephalus caused by a right thalamic/midbrain tumor (Fig. 1A). At surgery, the transcortical endoscope track was sealed with a Gelfoam plug to reduce the risk of pseudomeningocele formation. The immediate postoperative recovery period was uneventful, and the symptoms resolved. Between 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively, several episodes of intermittent bulging of the wound associated with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage occurred, culminating in an episode of meningitis. A computed tomography scan of the head demonstrated persistent ventriculomegaly and extraaxial CSF collections over the cerebral convexities, believed to be caused by decompression of the ventricles along the endoscope track. The boy was taken to the operating room and an external ventricular drain (EVD) was placed. Cultures of the CSF confirmed the diagnosis of coagulase-negative staphylococcal meningitis, and antibiotic therapy was commenced.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207