Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the academic achievement of survivors of pediatric brain tumors relative to case-control classmates and determine the extent to which deficits are moderated by type of treatment, family socioeconomic status, parental education level, and quality of family environment.Survivors are known to be at risk of cognitive and academic impairments following treatment, however the degree of impairment varies and limited research examining the role of these factors and possible interactions between them exists.METHODS: Brain tumor survivors, ages 5-18 and 1-5 years post treatment, were recruited from tumor registries at four pediatric hospitals in the US and Canada to participate in data collection in each child's school and home.A case-control classmate matched for age, gender, and race was identified for each survivor.Measures included the Wide Range Achievement Test, parent demographic questionnaire, and Family Environment Scale.Medical data was obtained via chart review.Analyses include 164 pairs of brain tumor survivors and classmate controls.RESULTS: Survivors demonstrated significantly lower achievement than controls in reading, spelling, and arithmetic, (p = .01).Deficits in academic achievement were found iii among children treated with Neurosurgery only as well as for those who received chemotherapy and/or radiation.Results suggested that the discrepancy in academic achievement between survivors and controls across all three academic domains may be heightened when survivors reside in home environments characterized by less support or more conflict.Possible interactions between family characteristics and treatment intensity were examined but not found to be significant.CONCLUSIONS: This study supports frequently noted concerns about the potential impact of treatment for pediatric cancer on survivors' quality of life.We also find evidence that survivors treated with neurosurgery only also experience academic difficulties and could benefit from support services and collaboration between medical and school systems.Finally, aspects of family environment may impact survivors' achievement, which offers potential for the development of targeted interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".