MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400390278 · doi:10.3171/2024.5.peds2469

Comparing ventriculoatrial and ventriculopleural shunts in pediatric hydrocephalus: a Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network study

2024· article· en· W4400390278 on OpenAlexaff
Vijay M. Ravindra, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Hailey Jensen, William E. Whitehead, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, David D. Limbrick, John C. Wellons, Robert P. Naftel, Curtis J. Rozzelle, Brandon G. Rocque, Ian F. Pollack, Michael M. McDowell, Mandeep S. Tamber, Jason S. Hauptman, Samuel R. Browd, Jonathan Pindrik, Albert M. Isaacs, Patrick J. McDonald, Todd C. Hankinson, Eric M. Jackson, Jason Chu, Mark D. Krieger, Tamara D. Simon, Jennifer M. Strahle, Richard Holubkov, Ron Reeder, John R. W. Kestle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)HydrocephalusSurgeryShuntingComplicationIntraventricular hemorrhageGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: When the peritoneal cavity cannot serve as the distal shunt terminus, nonperitoneal shunts, typically terminating in the atrium or pleural space, are used. The comparative effectiveness of these two terminus options has not been evaluated. The authors directly compared shunt survival and complication rates for ventriculoatrial (VA) and ventriculopleural (VPl) shunts in a pediatric cohort. METHODS: The Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network Core Data Project was used to identify children ≤ 18 years of age who underwent either VA or VPl shunt insertion. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure. Secondary outcomes included distal site complications and frequency of shunt failure at 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: The search criteria yielded 416 children from 14 centers with either a VA (n = 318) or VPl (n = 98) shunt, including those converted from ventriculoperitoneal shunts. Children with VA shunts had a lower median age at insertion (6.1 years vs 12.4 years, p < 0.001). Among those children with VA shunts, a hydrocephalus etiology of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) secondary to prematurity comprised a higher proportion (47.0% vs 31.2%) and myelomeningocele comprised a lower proportion (17.8% vs 27.3%) (p = 0.024) compared with those with VPl shunts. At 24 months, there was a higher cumulative number of revisions for VA shunts (48.6% vs 38.9%, p = 0.038). When stratified by patient age at shunt insertion, VA shunts in children < 6 years had the lowest shunt survival rate (p < 0.001, log-rank test). After controlling for age and etiology, multivariable analysis did not find that shunt type (VA vs VPl) was predictive of time to shunt failure. No differences were found in the cumulative frequency of complications (VA 6.0% vs VPl 9.2%, p = 0.257), but there was a higher rate of pneumothorax in the VPl cohort (3.1% vs 0%, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Shunt survival was similar between VA and VPl shunts, although VA shunts are used more often, particularly in younger patients. Children < 6 years with VA shunts appeared to have the shortest shunt survival, which may be a result of the VA group having more cases of IVH secondary to prematurity; however, when age and etiology were included in a multivariable model, shunt location (atrium vs pleural space) was not associated with time to failure. The baseline differences between children treated with a VA versus a VPl shunt likely explain current practice patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207