Examining the Prospective Relationship between Family Affective Responsiveness and Theory of Mind in Chronic Paediatric Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood and adolescence coincide with rapid structural and functional maturation of brain networks implicated in Theory of Mind (ToM); however, the impact of paediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) on the development of these higher order skills is not well understood. ToM can be partitioned into conative ToM , defined as the ability to understand how indirect speech acts involving irony and empathy are used to influence the mental or affective state of the listener; and affective ToM , concerned with understanding that facial expressions are often used for social purposes to convey emotions that we want people to think we feel. In a sample of 84 children with mild-severe TBI and 40 typically developing controls, this study examined the effect of paediatric TBI on affective and conative ToM; and evaluated the respective contributions of injury-related factors (injury severity/lesion location) and non-injury-related environmental variables (socio-economic status (SES)/family functioning) to long-term ToM outcomes. Results showed that the poorest ToM outcomes were documented in association with mild-complicated and moderate TBI, rather than severe TBI. Lesion location and SES did not significantly contribute to conative or affective ToM. Post-injury family affective responsiveness was the strongest and most significant predictor of conative ToM. Results suggest that clinicians should exercise caution when prognosticating based on early clinical indicators, and that group and individual-level outcome prediction should incorporate assessment of a range of injury- and non-injury-related factors. Moreover, the affective quality of post-injury family interactions represents a potentially modifiable risk factor, and might be a useful target for family-centred interventions designed to optimise social cognitive outcomes after paediatric TBI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".