Neurobehavioral outcomes in spina bifida: Processes versus outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review neurobehavioral outcomes and interventions for children with spina bifida. Focusing on children with spina bifida myelomeningocele, we contrast historical views of outcomes based on comparisons across content domains (e.g., language versus visual perceptual skills) with a view based on overarching processes that underlie strengths and weakness within content domains. Thus, we suggest that children with SBM have strengths when the skill involves the capacity to retrieve information from semantic memory and generate material that has been associatively linked or learned (associative processing) and general difficulties on tasks that require the construction or integration of a response (assembled processing). We use a hypothetical case to illustrate the differences in content domains versus general processes and also identify interventions that may be effective in addressing some of the cognitive and behavioral difficulties experienced variably by people with SBM. We extend these general principles to a discussion of variability in outcomes and use data from a large sample of children with spina bifida to illustrate the basis for this variability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it