MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088363453 · doi:10.3171/2010.11.peds10296

Use of the ETV Success Score to explain the variation in reported endoscopic third ventriculostomy success rates among published case series of childhood hydrocephalus

2011· review· en· W2088363453 on OpenAlexaff
Abhaya V. Kulkarni, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Samuel R. Browd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyIntraclass correlationHydrocephalusCohortInter-rater reliabilityVentriculostomyNeurosurgeryPediatricsSurgeryStatisticsInternal medicinePsychometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Published case series of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for childhood hydrocephalus have reported widely varying success rates. The authors recently developed and internally validated the ETV Success Score (ETVSS); this is a simplified means of predicting the 6-month success rate of ETV for a child with hydrocephalus, based on age, etiology of hydrocephalus, and presence of a previous shunt. The authors hypothesized that the ETVSS would be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the actual ETV success rate reported among published case series. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify published pediatric ETV papers that contained enough information with which to calculate an aggregate, mean predicted ETVSS for the cohort. This was then compared with the actual ETV success rate in the cohort. Data were extracted independently in triplicate, including by 2 individuals who were not involved with the development of the ETVSS. RESULTS: Fifteen papers reporting on 322 patients were included. Interrater reliability was very high in determining the predicted ETVSS (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.99). The predicted ETVSS for each paper agreed strongly with the actual ETV success rate reported in each paper (reliability intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the predicted ETVSS and the actual ETV success (p = 0.98, paired t-test). In a linear regression model, the predicted ETVSS explained 62% of the variation in actual ETV success. When the entire cohort was combined and analyzed together, the overall mean predicted ETVSS was 57.9%, which was nearly identical to the actual ETV success rate of 59.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The ETVSS closely predicts the actual ETV success rate reported in selected papers published over the last 20 years and explains much of the variation.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0430.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations125
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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