Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Treatment of Pediatric Hydrocephalus: Update of the 2014 Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The Congress of Neurological Surgeons reviews its guidelines according to the Institute of Medicine's recommended best practice of reviewing guidelines every 5 yrs. The authors performed a planned 5-yr review of the medical literature used to develop the “Pediatric hydrocephalus: systematic literature review and evidence-based guidelines” and determined the need for an update to the original guideline based on new available evidence. OBJECTIVE To perform an update to include the current medical literature for the “Pediatric hydrocephalus: systematic literature review and evidence-based guidelines”, originally published in 2014. METHODS The Guidelines Task Force used the search terms and strategies consistent with the original guidelines to search PubMed and Cochrane Central for relevant literature published between March 2012 and November 2019. The same inclusion/exclusion criteria were also used to screen abstracts and to perform the full-text review. Full text articles were then reviewed and when appropriate, included as evidence and recommendations were added or changed accordingly. RESULTS A total of 41 studies yielded by the updated search met inclusion criteria and were included in this update. CONCLUSION New literature resulting from the update yielded a new recommendation in Part 2, which states that neuro-endoscopic lavage is a feasible and safe option for the removal of intraventricular clots and may lower the rate of shunt placement (Level III). Additionally a recommendation in part 7 of the guideline now states that antibiotic-impregnated shunt tubing reduces the risk of shunt infection compared with conventional silicone hardware and should be used for children who require placement of a shunt (Level I). <https://www.cns.org/guidelines/browse-guidelines-detail/pediatric-hydrocephalus-guideline>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".