ArticleBrain & spine2024
Embracing uncertainty in cerebrospinal fluid dynamics: A Bayesian approach to analysing infusion studies.
Article in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infusion test analysis allows recognizing and appropriately evaluating CSF dynamics in the context of normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH), which is crucial for effective diagnosis and treatment. However, existing methodology possesses drawbacks that may compromise the precision and interpretation of CSF dynamics parameters. Research question: This study aims to circumvent these constraints by introducing an innovative analysis method grounded in Bayesian inference. Material and methods: A single-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted on 858 patients who underwent a computerized CSF infusion test between 2004 and 2020. We developed a Bayesian framework-based method for parameter estimation and compared the results to the current, gradient descent-based approach. We evaluated the accuracy and reliability of both methods by analysing erroneous prediction rates and curve fitting errors. Results: The Bayesian method surpasses the gradient descent approach, reflected in reduced inaccurate prediction rates and an improved goodness of model fit. On whole cohort level both techniques produced comparable results. However, the Bayesian method holds an added advantage by providing uncertainty intervals for each parameter. Sensitivity analysis revealed significance of the CSF production rate parameter and its interplay with other variables. The resistance to CSF outflow demonstrated excellent robustness. Discussion and conclusion: The proposed Bayesian approach offers a promising solution for improving robustness of CSF dynamics assessment in NPH, based on CSF infusion tests. Additional provision of the uncertainty measure for each diagnostic metric may perhaps help to explain occasional poor diagnostic performance of the test, offering a robust framework for improved understanding and management of NPH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.