MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040156071 · doi:10.1093/ons/opaa345

In Reply: Transesophageal Echocardiography-Guided Ventriculoatrial Shunt Insertion

2020· letter· en· W3040156071 on OpenAlex

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

VenueOperative Neurosurgery · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)CatheterSuperior vena cavaRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: We thank the authors for their letter1 and comments regarding our paper that presented the technique and initial experience using transesophageal echo (TEE) to guide insertion of the atrial catheter during a ventriculoatrial (VA) shunt insertion.2 We agree with the authors1 that there is a “lack of consensus about the optimal position of the [VA shunt distal] catheter tip.” The authors also indicate that the “lower third of the superior vena cava (SVC) is generally considered an acceptable target position.” The latter statement unfortunately lacks adequate support from the available literature and somewhat contradicts their first statement. Our study2 documented the feasibility of distal catheter placement at a very specific location and identified a need to ultimately define an optimal distal catheter position within the SVC or atrium. The report by Della Pepa et al3 describes the experience with “echocardiography (EKG)-guided VA shunt insertion” in 5 patients with good results and verified catheter placement with chest radiography. However, chest radiography is an indirect method, which only verified placement within the “correct range” corresponding to the lower third of the SVC and cannot be as precise as is possible with TEE. But what is not known is whether the potential differences regarding the location of the catheter tip in these 2 studies have any relationship with shunt function or risk of shunt failure. The authors expressed concern that the described TEE technique “may somehow [be] burdensome.” We respectfully disagree. As we have indicated, TEE is very much available at modern surgical centers. TEE is commonly used in the hospital setting and, for example, intraoperatively for cardiac surgery, and adopting TEE in the neurosurgical operating room is not unreasonable.4 Lastly, in examining the risks associated with TEE, Hilberath et al5 summarized that “in comparison with other diagnostic modalities, TEE is relatively safe and noninvasive. However, the insertion and manipulation of the ultrasound probe can cause oropharyngeal, esophageal, or gastric trauma.”5 It is important to note that this extensive review5 of TEE literature prior to 2010 also reinforces that the actual risk of complications with intraoperative use of TEE is very low. This is further supported by guidelines reported by Porter et al4 in 2015. The use of TEE is accepted as an adjunct for many intraoperative procedures and the risk associated with the use of TEE as a precise method for VA shunt distal catheter positioning is low. We would consider that the primary goals for further investigations should focus on achieving a combination of effective shunt function (ie, treatment of hydrocephalus), a low risk of shunt failure, and a low risk of treatment-associated complications. As part of this, we would advocate for additional research comparing different techniques for VA shunt distal catheter insertion. Funding This study did not receive any funding or financial support. Disclosures The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.281 · 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