Neuropsychological functioning following craniopharyngioma removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neuropsychological functioning of patients who had undergone surgical removal of craniopharyngiomas was compared to that of an endocrine control group composed of patients with nontumor hypopituitarism, an obese control group, and a normal control group. Neuropsychological assessments consisting of measures of intelligence, memory, attention, and executive functioning were carried out. The craniopharyngioma group had lower Performance IQ than did the normal control group, but their Performance IQ was comparable to that of the hypopituitarism and obese control groups. The craniopharyngioma patients did not differ in Verbal or Full Scale IQs from the remaining groups. There were no group differences on measures of verbal or nonverbal memory, ability to sustain attention, or executive functioning including measures of verbal or figural fluency, nonverbal problem solving, ability to copy a complex geometric figure, and visual motor and visual sequencing skills. The group mean scores on the measures of intelligence and neuropsychological abilities for the craniopharyngioma patients were in the low-average to average range. While craniopharyngioma patients can have significant morbidity including endocrine and visual deficits as well as obesity resulting from hyperphagia, neuropsychological deficits are not always present. Their neuropsychological outcome is more benign than some previous studies have suggested.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".