A randomized control intervention trial to improve social skills and quality of life in pediatric brain tumor survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine if a group social skills intervention program improves social competence and quality of life (QOL) in pediatric brain tumor survivors (PBTS). METHODS: We conducted a randomized control trial in which PBTS (8-16 years old, off therapy for over 3 months) were allocated to receive social skills training (eg, cooperation, assertion, using social cognitive problem solving strategies, role playing, games, and arts and crafts) in 8 weekly 2-hour sessions, or an attention placebo control (games and arts and crafts only). Outcomes were self-reported, proxy-reported (caregiver), and teacher-reported using the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS), to measure social competence, and the Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL4.0, generic) to measure QOL at baseline, after intervention, and at 6 months follow-up. At baseline, SSRS were stratified into low and high scores and included as a covariate in the analysis. RESULTS: Compared to controls (n = 48), PBTS in the intervention group (n = 43) reported significantly better total and empathy SSRS scores, with improvements persisting at follow-up. The PBTS in the intervention group who had low scores at baseline reported the greatest improvements. Proxy and teacher reports showed no intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in group social skills intervention can improve self-reported social competence that persisted to follow up. The PBTS should be given the opportunity to participate in social skills groups to improve social competence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".