The 50 most cited publications in endoscopic third ventriculostomy: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVEAlthough endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for the treatment of hydrocephalus was introduced in 1923, the method was relegated to the sidelines in favor of extracranial techniques. Since the 1990s to the beginning of the current century, however, ETV has undergone a remarkable resurgence to become the first-line treatment for obstructive hydrocephalus, and for some groups, the procedure has been applied for communicating hydrocephalus as well. In the present study, the authors identified the top 50 cited ETV works. These articles represent works of significance that document current practices and provide guidance for future inquiry.METHODSThe top 50 cited articles pertaining to ETV were identified using bibliometric data obtained with the Harzing's Publish or Perish software search engine. These high-impact works were evaluated for publication properties including year, country of authorship, category, and journal.RESULTSThe top 50 works were cited an average of 141.02 times with a mean of 9.45 citations per year. Articles published in 2005 were the most numerous in the top 50 group. These top articles were most frequently published in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. Most of the articles were clinical studies reporting on patients in the pediatric age group. The country of most authorship was the US, although many other countries were among the top 50 works.CONCLUSIONSThe present report discusses the bibliometric analysis of the top 50 ETV articles. This list may be useful to those interested in the progress and current status of this procedure.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.089 | 0.356 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".