Endoscopic biopsy for intraventricular tumors in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Endoscopy is a useful technique for obtaining biopsy samples of intraventricular tumors, and it offers the advantage of simultaneous treatment of obstructive hydrocephalus through endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV). Figures in the literature on the diagnostic yield of endoscopic biopsy, its complication rate, and the success rate of ETV in this context vary significantly. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of biopsy accuracy, complication rate, and success rate of ETV in a series of 31 endoscopic biopsy procedures. METHODS: All data regarding tissue and cerebrospinal fluid sampling, endoscopy-related complications, procedures performed for hydrocephalus treatment, tissue diagnosis, and further management were reviewed. The accuracy of the biopsy findings was graded on a four-level scale: Level I, fully diagnostic; Level II, diagnostic with some reservation; Level III, pathological categorization problematic; and Level IV, not interpretable. Failure of ETV was defined as the need for any further operation for the treatment of hydrocephalus. Tissue diagnosis was graded as Level I or II in 23 cases. One Level I diagnosis differed from the diagnosis made following craniotomy. During the study period one patient underwent endoscopy without biopsy because the tumor could not be visualized. Consequently, the percentage of successful biopsies was 69% (22 of 32 endoscopic procedures). Complications occurred in six cases (19%), of which two (6%) were significant. Three patients (10%) suffered hemorrhagic complications. When combined with biopsy, the ETV procedure was successful in nine (64%) of 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic biopsy of intraventricular tumors is a useful technique for establishing a tissue diagnosis and is associated with an acceptable complication rate. The biopsy does not affect the success rate of simultaneous ETV.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".