Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline on the Management of Patients With Myelomeningocele: Whether Persistent Ventriculomegaly Adversely Impacts Neurocognitive Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myelomeningocele (MM) is the most common congenital anomaly to affect the nervous system and affects 1500-2000 newborn infants per year in the United States. It is accompanied by symptomatic hydrocephalus in approximately 70%-80% of patients. Different treatment strategies for hydrocephalus characteristically result in different effects on the size of the ventricles. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether persistent ventricular enlargement adversely impacts neurocognitive development in patients with MM. METHODS: The PubMed National Library of Medicine Medline database and Embase were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to neurocognitive or intellectual development and ventricular size or morphology. Abstracts were reviewed by the authors to identify which studies met strict inclusion criteria. An evidence table was constructed that summarized the included studies and reflected the quality of evidence (Classes I-III) that each represented. A recommendation was made that is based on the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: An initial abstract review utilizing strict inclusion/exclusion criteria yielded 48 studies, 9 of which underwent full-text review. There is limited and conflicting Class III evidence from 2 studies. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is insufficient data to conclude that ventricular size and morphology impact neurocognitive development.The full guideline can be found at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-spina-bifida-chapter-5.
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 | 0.023 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".