MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078404401 · doi:10.3171/ped/2008/1/3/237

Treatment of recurrent ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure associated with persistent cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia and latex allergy by use of an “extracted” shunt

2008· article· en· W2078404401 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Ellis, Colin Kazina, Marc R. Del Bigio, Patrick J. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)Cerebrospinal fluidEosinophiliaSurgeryAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shunt failure is commonly associated with infection or mechanical obstruction of the shunt system. The presence of eosinophilia in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been associated with CSF shunt failure and may be related to both latex and shunt allergies. The authors describe the case of a child with a latex allergy who presented with 10 episodes of shunt failure over a period of 93 months. Cerebrospinal fluid sampling demonstrated persistent eosinophilia (3-36%) and negative cultures. Pathological examination of the ventricular catheter on 3 occasions demonstrated mechanical obstruction by inflammatory debris consisting largely of eosinophils and multinucleated giant cells. On the suspicion that the child might have some uncharacterized allergy to the shunt hardware, shunt replacement was performed using an "extracted" shunt system. The child has remained free of shunt malfunction for > 2 years since the last surgery. Immune responses to unpolymerized silicone are discussed.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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