The effects of treatment for posterior fossa brain tumors on selective attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to identify whether deficits in selective attention are present in pediatric brain tumor patients. Selective attention was assessed with covert-orienting, filtering, and visual-search tasks in 54 patients with either (1) posterior fossa (PF) tumors treated with cranial radiation and surgery (n = 22); (2) PF tumors treated with surgery alone (n = 17); or (3) non-CNS tumors (n = 15), who served as a patient control group. To account for normal development, patient performance was also compared with that of healthy age-matched controls (n = 10). We found that in PF tumor patients selective attention was impaired, regardless of whether they were treated with cranial radiation and surgery or surgery alone. However, patients treated with cranial radiation were most impaired. These patients may have greater damage to posterior brain regions know to mediate selective attention as the result of tumor location, effects of surgery, and higher doses of radiation to the posterior regions of the brain. These findings help to elucidate the potential impact of pediatric brain tumors and their treatment on discrete attentional skills.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".