CMS-09BEHAVIOR AND TEMPERAMENT IN CHILDREN TREATED FOR PEDIATRIC MEDULLOBLASTOMA WITH POSTOPERATIVE CEREBELLAR MUTISM SYNDROME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postoperative Cerebellar Mutism Syndrome (CMS) has been documented in up to 25% of patients following resection of a posterior fossa tumor (e.g. medulloblastoma). CMS can present with diminished or absent speech output, emotional lability, affective disturbances, and other neurological, cognitive, and behavioral impairments. Although mutism is typically transient, speech/language and behavioral disturbances may persist. Behavior in the years following a diagnosis of CMS remains unclear and temperament has yet to be investigated in this population. We assessed behavior in 25 children treated for medulloblastoma (7 with CMS, 18 without CMS), approximately 6 years following diagnosis/treatment, using the Child Behavior Checklist (parent rated). Further, we examined post-treatment measures of self-reported temperament using the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised. Although comparable in age at diagnosis and testing, sex, full-scale IQ, radiation dose, hydrocephalus, and time from diagnosis to testing, patients with CMS had elevated rates of behavior and temperament difficulties compared to patients without CMS. Specifically, patients with CMS had greater social problems (p < .05) and increased externalizing behavior (p = .009); the latter was driven by higher ratings of aggressive behavior (e.g. fighting and arguing) in the CMS group (p = .03). Self-reported frustration and aggression was also higher in patients with CMS compared to patients without CMS (ps < .02). Our results suggest that patients with medulloblastoma who develop CMS are at risk for externalizing behavior, social problems, and temperament issues, including frustration and aggression, in the years following treatment. We provide novel evidence that the behavior and temperament problems that follow a diagnosis of CMS may be more persistent and long-term than have been documented to date. Overall, our findings underscore the behavior and temperament challenges in patients with CMS and the importance of targeted interventions to address and mitigate these problems.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".