MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968233082 · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyz265

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline on the Management of Patients With Myelomeningocele: Whether Persistent Ventriculomegaly Adversely Impacts Neurocognitive Development

2019· review· en· W2968233082 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey P. Blount, Susan Durham, Paul Klimo, Nadege Assassi, David F. Bauer, Alexandra D. Beier, Ann Marie Flannery, Catherine McClung-Smith, Dimitrios C. Nikas, Patricia Rehring, Mandeep S. Tamber, Rachana Tyagi, Catherine A. Mazzola

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveHydrocephalusVentriculomegalyGuidelineMEDLINEPediatricsCochrane LibraryEvidence-based medicineRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineSurgeryCognitionPsychiatryPregnancyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.231 · 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