Abstracts from Hydrocephalus 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Among the confirmed cases of hydrocephalus in the Middle East, there is no standardization of care or differentiation between various types of hydrocephalus.This is the first study in the Middle Eastern regions that aims at developing a hydrocephalus clinical protocol for appropriate standard of care.Methods: We used a well-established clinical protocol from Johns Hopkins University and adapted it to a locally relevant clinical context with the help of an interdisciplinary panel of experts.The final protocol included diagnostic radiology studies, lumbar punctures (LP) as indication for surgery in hydrocephalus patients, and standardized times for follow-up visits were scheduled for optimal management of care.Baseline and follow-up testing protocol included gait assessment scales [Tinetti Gait and Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go task (TUG)] and ICIQ Urinary Incontinence short form.Results: Key highlights were cultural and language barriers which resulted in editing the testing and measures for use within the region (ex.translation into Arabic, religious beliefs, and education levels were incorporated to modify protocols).Gender roles and space constraints restricted feasibility of gait testing and required invasive procedures (ex.TUG times could not be assessed in a public hallway for women and women demanded inpatient stays for LP). Conclusions:The study highlights the need to raise awareness and standardize clinical protocols for screening and treating NPH in the region.A critical analysis of issues related to the how and why of implementation, and in turn optimizing the appropriateness and relevance to the particular circumstances is essential.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.325 | 0.177 |
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".