Body weight, social competence, and cognitive functioning in survivors of childhood brain tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the following article was to examine: (a) body mass index (BMI) in survivors of childhood brain tumors; (b) the association of BMI with social competence and cognitive functioning; and (c) congruency in reporting of survivors' social competence by the survivors, parents, and teachers. PROCEDURE: Fifty-four survivors of childhood brain tumors (32 males) 8-18 years participated. BMI-for-age percentiles and BMI Z-scores (SDS) were calculated and survivors were categorized as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese, using established criteria. Informants completed measures of social competence and internalizing behaviors. Survivors also completed a test of self-perception and cognitive functioning (IQ). RESULTS: Survivors were more underweight (15% vs. 4%), and less overweight (17% vs. 31%) than population norms (chi(2) = 38.62, P < 0.001). Parents perceived lower social competence in survivors that were underweight, had lower verbal IQ, and higher internalizing behaviors (P < 0.05). A significant interaction between BMI-for-age and IQ on self-perception of close friendships suggested that survivors with lower weight and lower IQ perceived having fewer close friendships (P < 0.05). Congruency among the three informants was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of childhood brain tumors are at increased risk for underweight. Underweight status is related to lower parent reported social competence and survivors' self-perception of fewer close friendships in the presence of low IQ.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".