MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306167936 · doi:10.1177/2050313x221129770

Unusual presentation of a common neurosurgical shunt procedure in an adult patient

2022· article· en· W4306167936 on OpenAlexaff
Davaine Joel Ndongo Sonfack, Bilal Tarabay, Daniel Shédid, Sung-Joo Yuh

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)HydrocephalusSurgeryHydroceleScrotumCatheterHerniaPeritoneal cavityInguinal hernia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery is one of the treatments of hydrocephalus. It involves placing a shunt from the cerebral ventricles to the peritoneum serving as a drainage point. Infection and catheter blockage are some of the possible complications resulting from this procedure. In some cases, other incidents such as peritoneal shunt migration have also been described. Here, we present the case of a 73-year-old male patient treated with ventriculoperitoneal shunt for a normal pressure hydrocephalus. After an initial blockage of the ventricular catheter, a revision surgery was performed with only mild improvement of his neurological symptoms. A repeat shunt series X-ray showed a migration of the distal catheter into the scrotum through an inguinal hernia. He was successfully treated with a laparoscopic repair of the inguinal hernia and repositioning of the distal catheter into the peritoneal cavity. Scrotal migration and hydrocele are unusual presentations and complications of ventriculoperitoneal shunts. Close follow-up of patients with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt should be performed if they experience worsening of their neurological symptoms. Shunt integrity should be assessed and any complications should be managed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207