MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111315992 · doi:10.25259/sni_705_2020

Surgical intervention for spontaneous intracranial hypotension Type 4 CSF leak: A case report

2020· article· en· W3111315992 on OpenAlexaff
Saba Shahab, Mohamed A. R. Soliman, Abdullah F. Alkhamees, Sydney Eaton, Elise Quint, Jacob Im, Avalon O’Connor, Erika Haberfellner, Abdalla Shamisa

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Neurology International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsWindsor Regional HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLeakHeadachesSpontaneous Intracranial HypotensionIntracranial HypotensionOrthostatic vital signsEpidural blood patchCerebrospinal fluid leakCerebrospinal fluidSurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) is a rare condition that can be very debilitating. SIH is well understood to be due to a CSF leak, however, identifying the source of the leak is still a challenge. We are presenting a case of Type 4 CSF leak and reviewing the related literature. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 46-year-old female presenting with intractable orthostatic headaches was diagnosed with SIH. She was unable to mobilize due to the severity of her symptoms. MRI scans of the brain and spine did not identify a source of the leak. After failing conservative therapy and multiple epidural blood patches, the patient underwent surgery which resulted in significant improvement in symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that surgical intervention improves symptoms in patients who do not have an identifiable source of CSF leak. Further studies need to be done to fully understand the role of surgery in Type 4 CSF leaks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical Neurology InternationalSame topicNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207