Social Competence in Childhood Brain Tumor Survivors: Feasibility and Preliminary Outcomes of a Peer-Mediated Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary outcomes of a peer-mediated intervention to improve social competence of brain tumor survivors and classmates. METHOD: Twelve childhood brain tumor survivors and 217 classroom peers in intervention (n = 8) or comparison (n = 4) classrooms completed measures of social acceptance and reputation at 2 time points in the year. The intervention (5-8 sessions over 4-6 weeks) taught peer leaders skills for engaging classmates. Individual and classroom outcomes were analyzed with analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Recruitment rates of families of brain tumor survivors (81%) and schools (100%) were adequate. Peer leaders reported satisfaction with the intervention. Preliminary outcome data trended toward some benefit in increasing the number of friend nominations for survivors of brain tumors but no changes in other peer-reported metrics. Preliminary results also suggested some positive effects on classroom levels of victimization and rejection. CONCLUSION: A peer-mediated intervention was acceptable to families of brain tumor survivors and feasible to implement in schools. Findings warrant a larger trial to evaluate improvements for children with brain tumors and their peers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".