Endoscopic Treatment versus Shunting for Infant Hydrocephalus in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postinfectious hydrocephalus in infants is a major health problem in sub-Saharan Africa. The conventional treatment is ventriculoperitoneal shunting, but surgeons are usually not immediately available to revise shunts when they fail. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV-CPC) is an alternative treatment that is less subject to late failure but is also less likely than shunting to result in a reduction in ventricular size that might facilitate better brain growth and cognitive outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate cognitive outcomes after ETV-CPC versus ventriculoperitoneal shunting in Ugandan infants with postinfectious hydrocephalus. The primary outcome was the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third Edition (BSID-3), cognitive scaled score 12 months after surgery (scores range from 1 to 19, with higher scores indicating better performance). The secondary outcomes were BSID-3 motor and language scores, treatment failure (defined as treatment-related death or the need for repeat surgery), and brain volume measured on computed tomography. RESULTS: A total of 100 infants were enrolled; 51 were randomly assigned to undergo ETV-CPC, and 49 were assigned to undergo ventriculoperitoneal shunting. The median BSID-3 cognitive scores at 12 months did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (a score of 4 for ETV-CPC and 2 for ventriculoperitoneal shunting; Hodges-Lehmann estimated difference, 0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2 to 0; P=0.35). There was no significant difference between the ETV-CPC group and the ventriculoperitoneal-shunt group in BSID-3 motor or language scores, rates of treatment failure (35% and 24%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5; P=0.24), or brain volume (z score, -2.4 and -2.1, respectively; estimated difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.3 to 1.0; P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: This single-center study involving Ugandan infants with postinfectious hydrocephalus showed no significant difference between endoscopic ETV-CPC and ventriculoperitoneal shunting with regard to cognitive outcomes at 12 months. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01936272 .).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".