Comparison of Intracranial Neuroendoscopic Procedures in Children versus Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emphasis regarding intracranial neuroendoscopy has been traditionally advocated and focused on the role in pediatric patients, although a significant usage has developed in adult patients. In this study, we examine and contrast the role of predominantly intracranial neuroendoscopy in both a pediatric and adult population with a minimum postprocedure follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted for patients in the two hospitals that manage neurosurgical care for Southern Alberta, Canada, undergoing neuroendoscopic surgery between 1994 and 2008. The pediatric group was defined as age ≤17 years and the adult group as age ≥18 years. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients who underwent a total of 330 procedures with a mean postprocedure follow-up of 12.9 years were identified. There were 161 adult and 112 pediatric patients, and both groups underwent surgery by the same surgeons. The most common procedure was endoscopic third ventriculostomy, accounting for 55% of procedures. One postoperative death occurred in an adult patient. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy success 1-year postprocedure was 81%, with only three late-term failures. Postoperative infection was the most common serious complication (two pediatric/four adult patients). Adult and pediatric patients had similar major complication rates (4.2% vs 5.7%, p=0.547). CONCLUSIONS: Neuroendoscopy overall had a similar role in both pediatric and adult neurosurgical populations, with the most commonly associated complication being infection. Neuroendoscopy is an important therapeutic modality in the management of appropriate adult patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".