MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414295008 · doi:10.14740/jmc5170

Anesthesiologist’s Concerns About Dandy-Walker Syndrome: Airway Management, Muscle Relaxants, and Train-of-Four Monitoring of Neuromuscular Blockade

2025· article· en· W4414295008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asead Abdyli, Oliatina Demiri, Gentian Huti, Filadelfo Coniglione, Alert Drishti, Krenar Lilaj, Rudin Domi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayAnestheticNeuromuscular BlockadeBrainstemShunt (medical)Airway managementVentilation (architecture)Laryngeal mask airway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dandy-Walker syndrome is a rare congenital malformation of the posterior fossa that presents unique anesthetic challenges, including difficult airway management, altered consciousness, hydrocephalus, and potential for prolonged postoperative ventilation. Hydrocephalus, the most common finding, can complicate ventilation and intubation, whereas brainstem involvement, along with agenesis of the corpus callosum, pontine hypoplasia, and distortion of the medullary respiratory centers, may contribute to prolonged postoperative ventilation. Anesthetic management in such cases requires thorough airway assessment, preparation for potential airway difficulties, intracranial pressure monitoring and control, and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) to facilitate rapid emergence. We describe the case of a 3-year-old male with macrocephaly, movement disorders, delayed cognitive development, and altered mental status, scheduled for ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement under TIVA without muscle relaxants, with careful airway preparation and intracranial pressure control. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of Dandy-Walker syndrome managed in this manner.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207