TROPHY registry — status report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The TROPHY registry has been established to conduct an international multicenter prospective data collection on the surgical management of neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)-related hydrocephalus to possibly contribute to future guidelines. The registry allows comparing the techniques established to treat hydrocephalus, such as external ventricular drainage (EVD), ventricular access device (VAD), ventricular subgaleal shunt (VSGS), and neuroendoscopic lavage (NEL). This first status report of the registry presents the results of the standard of care survey of participating centers assessed upon online registration. METHODS: On the standard of treatment forms, each center indicated the institutional protocol of interventions performed for neonatal post-hemorrhagic hydrocephalus (nPHH) for a time period of 2 years (Y1 and Y2) before starting the active participation in the registry. In addition, the amount of patients enrolled so far and allocated to a treatment approach are reported. RESULTS: According to the standard of treatment forms completed by 56 registered centers, fewer EVDs (Y1 55% Y2 46%) were used while more centers have implemented NEL (Y1 39%; Y2 52%) to treat nPHH. VAD (Y1 66%; Y2 66%) and VSGS (Y1 42%; Y2 41%) were used at a consistent rate during the 2 years. The majority of the centers used at least two different techniques to treat nPHH (43%), while 27% used only one technique, 21% used three, and 7% used even four different techniques. Patient data of 110 infants treated surgically between 9/2018 and 2/2021 (13% EVD, 15% VAD, 30% VSGS, and 43% NEL) were contributed by 29 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasize the varying strategies used for the treatment of nPHH. The international TROPHY registry has entered into a phase of growing patient recruitment. Further evaluation will be performed and published according to the registry protocol.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.051 |
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".