Prevention of Postshunting Ventricular Asymmetry by Transseptal Placement of Ventricular Catheters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ventricular asymmetry is common after ventricular shunting, and occasionally isolation of the contralateral ventricle necessitates a second shunt. The following study was performed to determine whether contralateral placement of the ventricular catheter via ultrasound-guided perforation of the septum pellucidum would decrease the incidence of postshunting ventricular asymmetry which might predispose to symptomatic isolation of a lateral ventricle. Fifty-eight children with hydrocephalus and an open fontanel, who were having a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt via a parieto-occipital approach, were randomized to have the ventricular catheter tip placed into either the ipsilateral or the contralateral frontal horn. Ventricular asymmetry occurred in 23% of the patients with contralateral versus 54% with ipsilateral placement (chi 2 = 5.53; p = 0.019). In 7 patients with contralateral placement, in whom a special catheter with two sets of holes was used, such that holes were located in both ventricles, no shunt-related ventricular asymmetry occurred. In 2 children with ipsilateral placement, a second shunt was required for a symptomatic isolated lateral ventricle. Perforation of the septum pellucidum with placement of the ventricular catheter in the contralateral ventricle, using a specially designed catheter with two sets of holes, may decrease the incidence of postshunting ventricular asymmetry and symptomatic isolation of a lateral ventricle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".