Priorities for hydrocephalus research: report from a National Institutes of Health–sponsored workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Treatment for hydrocephalus has not advanced appreciably since the advent of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunts more than 50 years ago. Many questions remain that clinical and basic research could address, which in turn could improve therapeutic options. To clarify the main issues facing hydrocephalus research and to identify critical advances necessary to improve outcomes for patients with hydrocephalus, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored a workshop titled "Hydrocephalus: Myths, New Facts, and Clear Directions." The purpose of this paper is to report on the recommendations that resulted from that workshop. METHODS: The workshop convened from September 29 to October 1, 2005, in Bethesda, Maryland. Among the 150 attendees was an international group of participants, including experts in pediatric and adult hydrocephalus as well as scientists working in related fields, neurosurgeons, laboratory-based neuroscientists, neurologists, patient advocates, individuals with hydrocephalus, parents, and NIH program and intramural staff. Plenary and breakout sessions covered injury and recovery mechanisms, modeling, biomechanics, diagnosis, current treatment and outcomes, complications, quality of life, future treatments, medical devices, development of research networks and information sharing, and education and career development. RESULTS: The conclusions were as follows: 1) current methods of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes monitoring need improvement; 2) frequent complications, poor rate of shunt survival, and poor quality of life for patients lead to unsatisfactory outcomes; 3) investigators and caregivers need additional methods to monitor neurocognitive function and control of CSF variables such as pressure, flow, or pulsatility; 4) research warrants novel interdisciplinary approaches; 5) understanding of the pathophysiological and recovery mechanisms of neuronal function in hydrocephalus is poor, warranting further investigation; and 6) both basic and clinical aspects warrant expanded and innovative training programs. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities of this workshop provide critical guidance for future research in hydrocephalus, which should result in advances in knowledge, and ultimately in the treatment for this important disorder and improved outcomes in patients of all ages.
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 | 0.047 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".