Social Communication Features in Children following Moderate to Severe Acquired Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the social communication deficits of children with moderate to severe acquired brain injury or autism spectrum disorder, while accounting for the role of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. Parents of 20 children aged 6 to 10 years (10 acquired brain injury; 10 autism spectrum disorder) completed the Social Communication Questionnaire, and Conners 3 Parent Short. A multivariate analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between groups in Social Communication Questionnaire restricted repetitive behavior scores, but not reciprocal social interaction or social communication. Multiple linear regressions indicated diagnosis did not predict reciprocal social interaction or social communication scores and that Conners 3 Parent Short Form hyperactivity scores were the strongest predictor of Social Communication Questionnaire reciprocal social interaction scores after accounting for age and Intelligence Quotient. The lack of difference in social communication deficits between groups may help in understanding the pathophysiology underlying the behavioral consequences of acquired brain injury. The link between hyperactivity and reciprocal interaction suggests that targeting hyperactivity may improve social outcomes in children following acquired brain injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".