MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093995765 · doi:10.1080/13638490310001649417

Remediation of attention deficits in children: a focus on childhood cancer, traumatic brain injury and attention deficit disorder

2004· review· en· W2093995765 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Rehabilitation · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryAttention deficit disorderMedicineChildhood cancerPediatricsAttention deficitsPsychiatryPsychologyCancerCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this review is to examine the status of attention training in children. This body of literature is very small so the review examines available efficacy studies in three paediatric groups: children who have survived cancer affecting the central nervous system (CNS) or whose treatment has impacted the CNS, children with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and children with attention deficit disorder (ADD). Seven studies/case reports are reviewed. The results are encouraging, with six of seven describing some improvement on attention measures. An original case study is presented using Pay Attention! materials with a 6 year old survivor of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This represents only the third report of the use of attention training materials with a survivor of childhood cancer and the first case report of the use of these materials with a very young child (6 years of age).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it