MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158169104 · doi:10.3171/2020.11.peds20806

Treatment strategies for hydrocephalus related to Dandy-Walker syndrome: evaluating procedure selection and success within the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network

2021· article· en· W3158169104 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron M. Yengo‐Kahn, John C. Wellons, Todd C. Hankinson, Jason S. Hauptman, Eric M. Jackson, Hailey Jensen, Mark D. Krieger, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, David D. Limbrick, Patrick J. McDonald, Robert P. Naftel, Jonathan Pindrik, Ian F. Pollack, Ron Reeder, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Curtis J. Rozzelle, Mandeep S. Tamber, William E. Whitehead, John R. W. Kestle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick Children
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeHydrocephalus AssociationPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsHydrocephalusDandySelection (genetic algorithm)Dandy–Walker syndromeMedicineComputer sciencePsychologySurgeryArtificial intelligenceHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Treating Dandy-Walker syndrome-related hydrocephalus (DWSH) involves either a CSF shunt-based or endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV)-based procedure. However, comparative investigations are lacking. This study aimed to compare shunt-based and ETV-based treatment strategies utilizing archival data from the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network (HCRN) registry. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected and maintained data on children with DWSH, available from the HCRN registry (14 sites, 2008-2018), was performed. The primary outcome was revision-free survival of the initial surgical intervention. The primary exposure was either shunt-based (i.e., cystoperitoneal shunt [CPS], ventriculoperitoneal shunt [VPS], and/or dual-compartment) or ETV-based (i.e., ETV alone or with choroid plexus cauterization [CPC]) initial surgical treatment. Primary analysis included multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 8400 HCRN patients, 151 (1.8%) had DWSH. Among these, the 102 patients who underwent shunt placement (79 VPSs, 16 CPSs, 3 other, and 4 multiple proximal catheter) were younger (6.6 vs 18.8 months, p < 0.001) and more frequently had 1 or more comorbidities (37.3% vs 14.3%, p = 0.005) than the 49 ETV-treated children (28 ETV-CPC). Fifty percent of the shunt-based and 51% of the ETV-based treatments failed. Notably, 100% (4/4) of the dual-compartment shunts failed. Adjusting for age, baseline ventricular size, and comorbidities, ETV-based treatment was not significantly associated with earlier failure compared with shunt-based treatment (HR for failure 1.32, 95% CI 0.77-2.26; p = 0.321). Complication rates were low: 4.9% and 6.1% (p = 0.715) for shunt- and ETV-based procedures, respectively. There was no difference in survival between ETV-CPC- and ETV-based treatment when adjusting for age (HR for failure 0.86, 95% CI 0.29-2.55, p = 0.783). CONCLUSIONS: In this North American, multicenter, prospective database review, shunt-based and ETV-based primary treatment strategies of DWSH appear similarly durable. Pediatric neurosurgeons can reasonably consider ETV-based initial treatment given the similar durability and the low complication rate. However, given the observational nature of this study, the treating surgeon might need to consider subgroups that were too small for a separate analysis. Very young children with comorbidities were more commonly treated with shunts, and older children with fewer comorbidities were offered ETV-based treatment. Future studies may determine preoperative characteristics associated with ETV treatment success in this population.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207