MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391693620 · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.025

Hydrocephalus and the First Report of an External Ventriculostomy: The Contributions of Fabrici d'Acquapendente in the Italian Renaissance

2024· review· en· W4391693620 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Zanin, Kristy Latour, Giulia Suquet, Pier Paolo Panciani, Alessandro Fiorindi, Marco Maria Fontanella

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Neurosurgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannulaHydrocephalusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our historical study, we are unveiling one of the very first surgical treatments of hydrocephalus originally scripted in Latin by Fabrici d'Acquapendente and then transcribed into the French language by Chez Pierre Ravaud. During the European Renaissance, Italian pioneering surgeon Fabricid'Acquapendente illustrated the technique performed at that time. Fabrici described the drainage of fluid for hydrocephalus using the insertion of a cannula. The cannula was kept in place for several days and the fluid was drained slowly and in regulated controlled amounts. Layers of bandage drapes were applied to prevent the leakage of fluid escaping from the wound. Unfortunately, we are missing some significant information regarding the surgical techniques as these were not documented by Fabrici. Although skull trephination was relatively well known, it is unsure whether at the time the cannula was inserted deep within the ventricles. Drainage of the fluid may have still occurred from the extracranial space. Moreover, we are unaware of how long the cannula was kept in place. Nonetheless, Fabrici d'Acquapendente may be considered among the first in Italy and possibly in Europe to lay down the foundations for external ventricular drainage system for hydrocephalus.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld NeurosurgerySame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207