2018-01-04, 07:49 PM
One of the keys as to whether this is extraordinary in the hydrocephalus cases will be the accuracy of the estimations of how much brain matter is present, and I'm not sure that these estimates are all that accurate (e.g. http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/ep/shar...ous-brain/).
Lorber's estimates were done back in 1984, and we have better methods now. I looked at the preview of his paper on those estimates, and there is no indication that his method was validated in some way. I tried to find some validation of the use of CT scan measures and I found this from 1979 (http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/42/4/345.full.pdf). It indicates that the CT scan is likely to over-estimate, sometimes grossly, the size of the ventricles, which would have led Lorber to substantially under-estimate the amount of brain substance.
I guess we can wait and see whether this makes much of a stir among the readers of the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.
Linda
Lorber's estimates were done back in 1984, and we have better methods now. I looked at the preview of his paper on those estimates, and there is no indication that his method was validated in some way. I tried to find some validation of the use of CT scan measures and I found this from 1979 (http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/42/4/345.full.pdf). It indicates that the CT scan is likely to over-estimate, sometimes grossly, the size of the ventricles, which would have led Lorber to substantially under-estimate the amount of brain substance.
I guess we can wait and see whether this makes much of a stir among the readers of the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.
Linda