A longitudinal study of processing speed among children treated for medulloblastoma (MB), supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumor (SPNET), or atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10028 Background: Indicating a strong relationship to intelligence, processing speed parallels with the rate of knowledge acquisition. To further our understanding of the etiology of deficits in intellectual ability that continues to plague this group of children, the current study prospectively examined longitudinal changes in an underlying cognitive ability, processing speed. Methods: The study included 174 patients (median age at diagnosis = 9.0) enrolled on a multi-site protocol (SJMB03) for MB, SPNET or ATRT. Patients were treated with post-surgical risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation (CSI) followed by 4 cycles of high-dose chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, vincristine) with stem cell support. High risk (HR, n = 55) patients received 36 - 39.6 Gy CSI and 3D conformal boost to the primary site to 55.8 –59.4 Gy. Average-risk (AR, n=119) patients received 23.4 Gy CSI, 3D conformal boost to the primary site to 55.8 Gy. Those who had posterior fossa syndrome were excluded (n = 26) resulting in 148 patients who completed 459 neuropsychological evaluations using the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities-III over a period of 0.03 –4.94 years postdiagnosis. Results: Multivariate modeling revealed a statistically significant decline in processing speed for those < 7 years of age at time of diagnosis (-3.83 points per year, p = 0.003). Those who were > 7 years at diagnosis did not experience a significant change (.86, NS). HR patients experienced greater declines (-.82) than those who were AR (-0.29), but neither slope was statistically significant. Interaction models revealed declines for those in the <7/AR group (-4.17, p = 0.003), and <7/HR group (-3.38, NS). Those >7/AR and >7/HR did not experience significant change (1.06 and 0.32, respectively). Conclusions: Young age at diagnosis is a prominent risk factor for processing speed impairment among survivors of pediatric embryonal tumors. Processing speed may also be among the first deficits to appear following treatment. This study represents the largest comparison of processing speed ability among patients treated for pediatric embryonal tumors with conventional or reduced dose CSI and adjuvant chemotherapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".