Consensus guidelines for lumbar puncture in patients with neurological diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cerebrospinal fluid collection by lumbar puncture (LP) is performed in the diagnostic workup of several neurological brain diseases. Reluctance to perform the procedure is among others due to a lack of standards and guidelines to minimize the risk of complications, such as post-LP headache or back pain. METHODS: We provide consensus guidelines for the LP procedure to minimize the risk of complications. The recommendations are based on (1) data from a large multicenter LP feasibility study (evidence level II-2), (2) systematic literature review on LP needle characteristics and post-LP complications (evidence level II-2), (3) discussion of best practice within the Joint Programme Neurodegenerative Disease Research Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's Disease and Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis consortia (evidence level III). RESULTS: Our consensus guidelines address contraindications, as well as patient-related and procedure-related risk factors that can influence the development of post-LP complications. DISCUSSION: When an LP is performed correctly, the procedure is well tolerated and accepted with a low complication rate.
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 | 0.055 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".