Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts are an established treatment modality for CSF diversion. An alternative to VP shunting is lumboperitoneal (LP) shunting. There is a paucity of evidence on LP shunt use in the literature, but available studies demonstrate that it is a safer and similarly efficacious method for conditions such as normal pressure hydrocephalies (NPH) and idiopathic -intracranial hypertension (IIH). Methods: Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts are an established treatment modality for CSF diversion. An alternative to VP shunting is lumboperitoneal (LP) shunting. There is a paucity of evidence on LP shunt use, but available studies demonstrate that it is a safer and similarly efficacious method for conditions such as normal pressure hydrocephalies (NPH) and idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). Results: 95 patients were treated with lumboperitoneal shunt, 71 of which were for hydrocephalus and 24 for IIH. 39 male and 58 female patients were included with mean age 55 (range from 20 to 96 years old). 26 patients had laparoscopic placement of the peritoneal catheter. Mechanical issues with distal end was less with laparoscopic approach. Conclusions: We will review disease-specific scores for NPH and IIH, and compare laparoscopic with non-laparoscopic placement of peritoneal catheter. We will also compare outcomes and complications with rates for VP shunting.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".