Verbal Cognitive Functioning and Learning in Girls Treated for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia By Chemotherapy With or Without Cranial Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropsychological problems have frequently been reported following treatment of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL), however, partly because of the heterogeneity of the previously studied samples, the specific nature of these deficits is still a matter of debate. These problems, however, appear to be related more to the combination of cranial radiation therapy (CRT) and intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC) than to ITC alone. In this study, we evaluated a homogenous group of 19 girls between the ages of 7 and 11 years, 30 months after the completion of treatment. Nine received cranial radiation and chemotherapy and 10 were treated with chemotherapy alone. The patients were compared to 10 normal healthy controls. Neuropsychological tests included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III), the California Verbal Learning Test-Children's Version (CVLT-C), and the Calculation and Passage Comprehension subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Results confirmed the presence ofa verbal learning deficit in ALL girls treated with the combination of ITC and CRT. The ITC and CRT group scored significantly lower than the healthy controls on the Passage Comprehension subtest and on 5 of the 6 verbal subtests of the WISC-III. Furthermore, compared to nonirradiated patients and healthy normal controls, the ITC and CRT group was impaired on the Freedom from Distractibility index of the WISC-III, indicating an auditory-verbal attention deficit. On the CVLT-C, the ITC and CRT group was particularly impaired on the second half of the learning trials compared to the other two groups, showing a plateau in their performance. The ITC group was not different from the healthy control group, suggesting a less detrimental effect of the ITC alone on verbal abilities. Globally, these results indicate a deficit affecting auditory attention and verbal learning in girls who receive ITC and CRT, which may suggest the necessity for special educational assistance for these children.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".