MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764293820 · doi:10.1080/09297049.2017.1386170

Characterizing neurocognitive late effects in childhood leukemia survivors using a combination of neuropsychological and cognitive neuroscience measures

2017· article· en· W2764293820 on OpenAlexafffund
Ellen van der Plas, Lauren Erdman, Brian J. Nieman, Rosanna Weksberg, Darci T. Butcher, Deborah L. O’Connor, Susanne Aufreiter, Johann Hitzler, Sharon Guger, Russell Schachar, Shinya Ito, Brenda J. Spiegler

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Neuropsychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Mental Health FoundationPediatric Oncology Group of OntarioPurdue PharmaOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPsychologyNeurocognitiveWorking memoryCognitionExecutive functionsNeuropsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleCognitive neuroscienceVerbal fluency testDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge about cognitive late effects in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is largely based on standardized neuropsychological measures and parent reports. To examine whether cognitive neuroscience paradigms provided additional insights into neurocognitive and behavioral late effects in ALL survivors, we assessed cognition and behavior using a selection of cognitive neuroscience tasks and standardized measures probing domains previously demonstrated to be affected by chemotherapy. 130 ALL survivors and 158 control subjects, between 8 and 18 years old at time of testing, completed the n-back (working memory) and stop-signal (response inhibition) tasks. ALL survivors also completed standardized measures of intelligence (Wechsler Intelligence Scales [WISC-IV]), motor skills (Grooved Pegboard), math abilities (WIAT-III), and executive functions (Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System). Parents completed behavioral measures of executive functions (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function [BRIEF]) and attention (Conners-3). ALL survivors exhibited deficiencies in working memory and response inhibition compared with controls. ALL survivors also exhibited deficits on WISC-IV working memory and processing speed, Grooved Pegboard, WIAT-III addition and subtraction fluency, and numerical operations, as well as DKEFS number-letter switching. Parent reports suggested more attention deficits (Conners-3) and behavioral difficulties (BRIEF) in ALL survivors compared with referenced norms. Low correspondence between standardized and experimental measures of working memory and response inhibition was noted. The use of cognitive neuroscience paradigms complements our understanding of the cognitive deficits evident after treatment of ALL. These measures could further delineate cognitive processes involved in neurocognitive late effects, providing opportunities to explore their underlying mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild NeuropsychologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207