Neurocognitive outcome in children with sensorineural hearing loss after treatment of malignant embryonal brain tumors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2029 Background: Neurological side effects associated with childhood brain tumors and their treatments contribute to long term neurocognitive morbidity. The aims of this study were to identify the incidence of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in a large sample of children treated for malignant brain tumors, and to evaluate the potential relationship between SNHL and intellectual functioning following the completion of treatment. Methods: We conducted a prospective follow-up study at a single center with review of 119 patients treated for embryonal brain tumors at the Hospital for Sick Children, between 1996-2015, to analyze the impact of significant SNHL (Chang > 2b) on intellectual function. Hearing was assessed post-treatment (median age: 13.5y (+4.5)) and the median age for neurocognitive testing was 12.8y (+ 4.1). The median interval from time of diagnosis was 5.8y (+ 3.7). Results: Severe SNHL was identified in half the patients (50.4%, n = 60/119). We identified a subset of patients (n = 61) who had assessments of intellectual function. In this cohort, intellectual function was significantly poorer in the group with severe SNHL, even after controlling for the effect of craniospinal radiation (severe SNHL 22.4 Gy + 13.3, no or mild hearing loss 20.4 Gy +12.8) and boost dose and volume. Children experiencing severe SNHL had lower overall IQ (severe SNHL 72.4 + 16.6; no/mild hearing loss 92.0 + 20.5) p < 0.001 and in significantly lower verbal comprehension (severe SNHL 78.7 + 15.9; no/mild hearing loss 94.7 + 13.8) p < 0.001, and working memory (severe SNHL 78.2+ 17.6; no/mild hearing loss 94.8 + 16.4) p < 0.001, scores. Conclusions: Hearing loss is a much more significant complication in children with embryonal brain tumors than previously estimated. We show the profound impact of hearing loss on intellectual deficit in children. Namely, patients with severe SNHL have difficulty using and understanding verbal language, and they have a reduced ability to concentrate and manipulate information in short-term memory. Our results have implications on future trial designs and follow-up of children treated for embryonal brain tumors.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".