Gaps, Controversies, and Proposed Roadmap for Research in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus is considered common but remains underinvestigated. There are no uniformly accepted diagnostic criteria and therapeutic guidelines. We summarize the accumulated evidence regarding the definition, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, highlighting the many gaps and controversies, including diagnostic challenges, the frequent association with neurodegeneration and vascular disease, and the many unknowns regarding patient selection and outcome predictors. A roadmap to fill these gaps and solve the controversies around this condition is also proposed. More evidence is required with respect to diagnostic criteria, the value of ancillary testing, prospective population-based studies and novel trial designs. Furthermore, a need exists to develop new advanced options in shunt technology. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.076 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".