Executive functions and social skills in pediatric brain tumor survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric brain tumor survivors (PBTSs) may experience impairment in executive functions and social competence, but their interrelation is not well understood. This study aimed to address the specificity of this relationship. PBTSs (n = 91) were on average 11.21 years old, 5 years from diagnosis, and 48.4% female. One parent and PBTS completed the Social Skills Rating System (subscales: Cooperation, Assertiveness, Empathy, Self-Control, and Total), and parents also completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (General Executive Composite [GEC], Metacognition [MI], and Behavioral Regulation [BRI] indices) and the (Withdrawal scale). Based on proxy reports, more PBTSs had deficits in Cooperation, Assertiveness and Responsibility skills relative to normative data. MI was more consistently associated with parent reported social skills deficits than BRI. PBTSs reported fewer deficits in social skills relative to normative data across all scales; none of the correlations between PBTSs reported social skills and executive functions were significant. Time since diagnosis and proxy reported lower total social skills predicted greater withdrawal. These findings highlight the importance of assessing differential perspectives of PBTSs social competence, and that metacognitive strategies may bear particular importance for the social skills of PBTSs.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".