Chiari malformation with concurrent papilledema: a patient-level meta-analysis of case reports and case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chiari I malformation, characterized by the displacement of cerebellar tonsils, and Chiari 1.5, involving cerebellar tonsils and brainstem displacement, share symptoms with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension, including headache, paresthesia, vision issues, shoulder/arm pain, diplopia, numbness, and motor weakness. Historically, papilledema marked IIH, but there are reports of papilledema in patients with Chiari I/1.5, leading to uncertainty about the most effective treatment strategies. We aim to address this gap by summarizing all reported cases of Chiari I/1.5 with papilledema. Methods Three primary electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS) were screened to identify case reports and case series of patients with Chiari malformation presenting with papilledema. All variables such as year and region of study, age, sex, symptoms, diagnostic information, treatment details, and follow-up duration, were recorded and analyzed. Study quality for each study included was assessed according to four scales: selection, ascertainment, causality, and reporting. Results 27 patients from 21 studies were included. Symptoms included headache (76.4%), decreased visual acuity (70.8%), and visual field loss (29.2%). 44.4% had lumbar punctures, and 40.7% received medical management. Of those managed medically, 41.7% fully recovered. Notably, none of 21 patients who underwent surgical decompression without improvement had prior lumbar puncture (0% vs. 64.3%, n = 9; p = 0.003) or medical management (0% vs. 57.1%, n = 8; p = 0.011) compared to those with symptom improvement. Conclusion Chiari malformation with papilledema exhibits varied symptoms. Medical management should be considered initially, offering standalone effectiveness and potential improvement for subsequent decompression if medication alone does not lead to recovery.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".