MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: A Systematic Review of Diagnosis and Outcome

2001· review· en· W2156956169 on OpenAlexaff
Adam O. Hebb, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHydrocephalusUrinary incontinenceShunt (medical)SurgeryShuntingCerebrospinal fluidComplicationNormal pressure hydrocephalusIntracranial pressureRetrospective cohort studyDementiaInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Patient selection for cerebrospinal fluid diversion is difficult, because idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) mimics other neurodegenerative disorders and no findings reliably predict outcome. The literature was reviewed to identify diagnostic criteria that predict shunt response and to formulate prognostic expectations. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched, and 44 articles meeting predetermined criteria were included. RESULTS: Clinical series were frequently retrospective with small patient numbers and unstandardized outcome evaluation. Clinical findings suggestive of shunt responsiveness were the complete triad (gait disturbance, urinary incontinence, and dementia) with early gait disturbance. Degree of hydrocephalus was not correlated with clinical improvement. Reduction of the subcortical low-blood flow area was correlated with improvement in three small studies. Clinical response to prolonged cerebrospinal fluid drainage predicted shunt outcome in all cases in two small series. Overall, 59% (range, 24-100%) of patients improved after shunting, and 29% (range, 10-100%) of patients experienced prolonged improvement. Complications occurred in 38% (range, 5-100%) of patients, additional surgery was required in 22% (range, 0-47%) of patients, and there was a 6% (range, 0-35%) combined rate of permanent neurological deficit and death. CONCLUSION: Shunting INPH is associated with an approximately 29% rate of significant improvement and a 6% significant complication rate. Enlargement of the subcortical low-flow area and clinical improvement secondary to prolonged lumbar drainage may provide additive predictive value above clinical and computed tomographic criteria. A multicenter clinical trial that focuses on the value of ancillary tests, defines the clinical course of a patient with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, and evaluates the cost effectiveness of shunting INPH is needed to better describe outcome from shunting in INPH.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.021
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations461
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207