Hydrocephalus status in spina bifida: an evaluation of variations in neuropsychological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The effect of hydrocephalus status on neuropsychological outcomes in children with spina bifida (SB) has not been carefully evaluated. The authors hypothesized a stepwise progression of outcomes related to hydrocephalus status (shunt-treated, arrested, or no hydrocephalus) and that motor, spatial, and executive function tasks would be more sensitive to hydrocephalus status than vocabulary and reading tasks. METHODS: Two hundred eight children (mean age 11.2 years) with SB were grouped according to hydrocephalus status: shunt-treated hydrocephalus (166 children), arrested hydrocephalus (18 children), and no hydrocephalus (24 children). Sixty-one typically developing children were included as a control group (mean age 12.05 years). All children were tested across neuropsychological content domains, including verbal and nonverbal IQ, reading and mathematical achievement, explicit memory, visuospatial function, executive function, and motor skills. RESULTS: There was a stepwise progression of outcomes. Averaging across tasks, performance scores of children with SB and no hydrocephalus (mean standard score 92.60) were higher than those of children with SB and arrested hydrocephalus (mean standard score 86.86), and scores of children in the latter group were higher than those of children with SB and shunt-treated hydrocephalus (mean standard score 82.30). All 3 groups scored lower than the control group (mean standard score 105.94). Fine motor tasks best differentiated the arrested-hydrocephalus and shunt-treated groups. Verbal and executive function tasks, often associated with socioeconomic status, best differentiated the group of children with SB and no hydrocephalus from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of fine motor skills and small differences in memory and spatial domains, children with SB and arrested or shunt-treated hydrocephalus have similar neuropsychological profiles. Performance of all 3 groups of children with SB was below that of the control group, which also reflects the lower socioeconomic status of the children with SB.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".