Survey of Techniques Utilized to Access Ventricular Shunts and Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study assessed variations in pediatric neurosurgical technique when accessing shunts and ventricular access devices (VADs). METHODS: A 12-question survey was developed and sent to members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) whose self-identified subspecialty was pediatric neurosurgery. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty surveys were sent out, and 149 responses were received (35.5% response rate); 95.3% of respondents always use sterile gloves, 55.0% never use a sterile gown, and 69.8% always have a member of the neurosurgery team perform the procedure. The majority of respondents answered "sometimes" for use of a facemask (38.3%), sterile drapes (39.6%), site shaving (45.6%), having an attending present (68.5%), and having an assistant hold the patient's head (78.5%). The majority reported using a 23- or 25-gauge butterfly needle for site entry (96.6%), and betadine or ChloraPrep™ as the preferred antiseptic solution (64.4%). The frequency in which CSF is sent for analysis is not standardized in 31.5% of respondents, and wait time for the antiseptic solution to dry is not standardized in 62.4%. CONCLUSIONS: There is great variation in the technique for accessing shunts and VADs. Future studies are needed to assess whether these discrepancies affect infection rates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".