Establishing ranked priorities for future hydrocephalus research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this initiative was to develop a ranked list of hydrocephalus research priorities as determined by the hydrocephalus patient community in conjunction with the healthcare and scientific community. METHODS: Using the validated methodology published by the James Lind Alliance (JLA), the Hydrocephalus Association (HA) administered two surveys and hosted a final prioritization workshop. Survey One solicited open-ended responses from the community. From these responses, a long list of priority statements was developed. This list was then consolidated into a short list of research priority statements, which, after a nonsystematic literature review, were verified as being research uncertainties. Survey Two asked the community members to select their top 10 priorities from the short list. The final prioritization leading to a final ranked top 20 list of hydrocephalus research priorities took place at a virtual workshop led by a team of trained facilitators, by means of an iterative process of consensus building. RESULTS: From Survey One, 3703 responses from 890 respondents were collected, leading to a long list of 146 priority statements. The consolidated short list contained 49 research priority statements, all of which were verified as uncertainties in hydrocephalus research. From an analysis of Survey Two responses, the top 21 research priority statements were determined. A consensus on these statements was reached at the virtual workshop, leading to a final ranked top 20 list of hydrocephalus research priorities, within which needs were apparent in several areas: development of noninvasive and/or one-time therapies, reduction of the burden of current treatments, improvement of the screening and diagnosis of hydrocephalus, improved quality of life, and improved access to care. CONCLUSIONS: By gathering extensive input from the hydrocephalus community and using an iterative process of consensus building, a ranked list of the top 20 hydrocephalus research priorities was developed. The HA will use this ranked list to guide future research programs and encourages the healthcare and scientific community to do the same.
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 | 0.143 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".