Cerebrospinal fluid findings in patients with idiopathic Normal pressure hydrocephalus – findings from a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (NPH) is a treatable cause of gait disturbance, cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence in older adults. The cerebrospinal fluid tap test (CSF-TT) is used as an ancillary test in the evaluation of idiopathic NPH (iNPH). However, there are no systematic studies on the correlation between CSF opening pressures and biochemical parameters with response to the CSF-TT and shunt responsiveness. CSF proteins are known to be mildly elevated in a few patients with iNPH. Periventricular hyperintensities are known to be correlated with intracranial pressure. Methods We compared CSF opening pressure and biochemical parameters between the CSF-TT responders (atleast 1 point reduction in modified Rankin scale 24 hours after CSF-TT) and non-responders. We also compared these parameters between those with and without MRI periventricular hyperintensities. MRI characteristics—including disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid-space hydrocephalus, periventricular white matter changes, Evans index, callosal angle, and cerebral infarcts—were also compared between patients with elevated versus normal CSF protein levels. Results CSF-TT responders had significantly higher CSF opening pressures (p = 0.04) compared to non-responders, while there were no differences in CSF biochemical parameters. Among MRI features, the callosal angle was significantly lower in patients with higher CSF protein levels (p = 0.02). Conclusion Higher CSF opening pressure within the diagnostic range was associated with CSF-TT responsiveness, while routine CSF biochemistry was not predictive. Elevated CSF protein was associated with a narrower callosal angle, highlighting the value of integrating pressure and imaging features in iNPH evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".