Beyond early motor response: Longitudinal cognitive and gait assessments after extended lumbar drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a multifactorial progressive disease affecting cognition, gait, and urinary continence, potentially reversible, or at least improvable, by a prompt surgical intervention. Given its potential surgical improvement, it is crucial to determine who will benefit of a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt. To date, although several procedures are considered useful to diagnose iNPH, there is no agreement concerning the best timing of the clinical assessment or the role played by formal cognitive testing. METHODS: Thirty participants with suspected iNPH were assessed at baseline, 2, and 15 days after 24-h extended lumbar drainage (ELD). Timed Up and Go test (TUG), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) were administered in order to quantify motor and cognitive performances. The TUG was used to assess clinical response to ELD. RESULTS: Our sample showed significant differences between baseline assessment and follow-ups in the majority of tests. Although some enhancements in performances appeared in the first post-ELD assessment, both treatment responders and non-responders showed better performances in the delayed assessment. Post hoc comparison found significant differences in each time point between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the key role of performing multiple assessments post CSF drainage, as response can be more prominent in a delayed rather than an early phase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".