Brain structure, working memory and response inhibition in childhood leukemia survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Survival rates for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) approach 95%. At the same time, there is growing concern that chemotherapy causes alterations in brain development and cognitive abilities. We performed MRI measurements of white and gray matter volume to explore how variation in brain structure may be related to cognitive abilities in ALL survivors and healthy controls. METHODS: The sample included 24 male ALL survivors who had completed contemporary treatment 3-11 years prior, and 21 age- and sex-matched controls. Participants were between 8 and 18 years old. Working memory and motor response inhibition were measured with the N-Back and Stop Signal Tasks (SST), respectively. Participants underwent 3T structural MRI to assess white and gray matter volumes overall, lobe-wise, and in cortical and atlas-identified subcortical structures. Mental health was assessed with the Child Behavioral Checklist. RESULTS: ALL survivors performed more poorly on measures of working memory and response inhibition than controls. Frontal and parietal white matter, temporal and occipital gray matter volume, and volumes of subcortical white and gray matter structures were significantly reduced in ALL survivors compared with controls. Significant structure-function correlations were observed between working memory performance and volume of the amygdala, thalamus, striatum, and corpus callosum. Response inhibition was correlated with frontal white matter volume. No differences were found in psychopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with controls, a reduction in volume across brain regions and tissue types, was detectable in ALL survivors years after completion of therapy. These structural alterations were correlated with neurocognitive performance, particularly in working memory. Confirming these observations in a larger, more representative sample of the population is necessary. Additionally, establishing the time course of these changes-and the treatment, genetic, and environmental factors that influence them-may provide opportunities to identify at-risk patients, inform the design of treatment modifications, and minimize adverse cognitive outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".