MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936680220 · doi:10.3171/2019.2.peds18743

Predictors of endoscopic third ventriculostomy ostomy status in patients who experience failure of endoscopic third ventriculostomy with choroid plexus cauterization

2019· article· en· W2936680220 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew T. Hale, Amanda N. Stanton, Shilin Zhao, Faizal Haji, Stephen R. Gannon, Anastasia Arynchyna, John C. Wellons, Brandon G. Rocque, Robert P. Naftel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyCauterizationAqueductal stenosisSurgeryHydrocephalusVentriculostomyInterquartile rangeRetrospective cohort studyUnivariate analysisIntraventricular hemorrhageMultivariate analysisGestational ageInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: At failure of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) with choroid plexus cauterization (CPC), the ETV ostomy may be found to be closed or open. Failure with a closed ostomy may indicate a population that could benefit from evolving techniques to keep the ostomy open and may be candidates for repeat ETV, whereas failure with an open ostomy may be due to persistently abnormal CSF dynamics. This study seeks to identify clinical and radiographic predictors of ostomy status at the time of ETV/CPC failure. METHODS: The authors conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study on all pediatric patients with hydrocephalus who failed initial ETV/CPC treatment between January 2013 and October 2016. Failure was defined as the need for repeat ETV or ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement. Clinical and radiographic data were collected, and ETV ostomy status was determined endoscopically at the subsequent hydrocephalus procedure. Statistical analysis included the Mann-Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, t-test, and Pearson chi-square test where appropriate, as well as multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 72 ETV/CPC failures, 28 patients (39%) had open-ostomy failure and 44 (61%) had closed-ostomy failure. Patients with open-ostomy failure were older (median 5.1 weeks corrected age for gestation [interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-15.9 weeks]) than patients with closed-ostomy failure (median 0.2 weeks [IQR -1.3 to 4.5 weeks]), a significant difference by univariate and multivariate regression. Etiologies of hydrocephalus included intraventricular hemorrhage of prematurity (32%), myelomeningocele (29%), congenital communicating (11%), aqueductal stenosis (11%), cyst/tumor (4%), and other causes (12%). A wider baseline third ventricle was associated with open-ostomy failure (median 15.0 mm [IQR 10.3-18.5 mm]) compared to closed-ostomy failure (median 11.7 mm [IQR 8.9-16.5 mm], p = 0.048). Finally, at the time of failure, patients with closed-ostomy failure had enlargement of their ventricles (frontal and occipital horn ratio [FOHR], failure vs baseline, median 0.06 [IQR 0.00-0.11]), while patients with open-ostomy failure had no change in ventricle size (median 0.01 [IQR -0.04 to 0.05], p = 0.018). Previous CSF temporizing procedures, intraoperative bleeding, and time to failure were not associated with ostomy status at ETV/CPC failure. CONCLUSIONS: Older corrected age for gestation, larger baseline third ventricle width, and no change in FOHR were associated with open-ostomy ETV/CPC failure. Future studies are warranted to further define and confirm features that may be predictive of ostomy status at the time of ETV/CPC failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207