MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104845715 · doi:10.3171/ped-07/11/345

Priorities for hydrocephalus research: report from a National Institutes of Health–sponsored workshop

2007· article· en· W2104845715 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthHydrocephalus Association
KeywordsMedicineHydrocephalusNeurocognitiveQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEBreakoutIntensive care medicinePsychiatryNursingCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.211 · 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