P.007 Symptoms free survival of ventriculoperitoneal shunt versus lumboperitoneal shunt in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a unique disorder that is characterized by an intractable high intracranial pressure. Several interventions have been in clinical practice upon failure of medical management. Yet, none of the available modalities have been evaluated systematically for an CSF diverion procedure. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in order to compare the therapeutic efficacy of the most two common interventions, namely VPS vs. LPS. The complications rate and incidence of shunt revision were assessed. The electronic database from EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane databases, and references of review articles have been used. Results: A total of five retrospective comparative studies had been included out of 724 articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. A 2570 VPS were compared to 1832 LPS with 85% of heterogeneity. Although there was a tendency that suggests better outcome in VPS over LPS but it was not statistically significant [OR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.26-3.24]. Similar tendency was observed as well with shunt obstruction. Conclusions: The overall outcomes for stabilizing visual deterioration and improvement of headaches were similar among VPS and LPS. A large prospective multicenteric randomized controlled trial is needed in order to compare effectiveness of VPS and LPS, and also to establish a treatment guideline for IIH.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".