Understanding the Learning Disabilities Linked to Sagittal Craniosynostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate further findings that corroborate similarities between corrected sagittal craniosynostosis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim is to further characterize the neurocognitive deficits seen in adolescents with corrected craniosynostosis by comparing it to established learning deficits such as ADHD. METHODS: A total of 30 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of 10 sagittal nonsyndromic craniosynostosis (sNSC), 10 ADHD-combined, and 10 control adolescents were studied. The fMRI scans were analyzed utilizing Statistical Parametric Mapping (University College London, UK) and analyzed with BioImageSuite (Yale University, New Haven, CT). RESULTS: The ADHD has lower connectivity to Brodmann area (BA) 11 (Montreal Neurological Institution [MNI]: -12,26,-21), BA20 (MNI: 62,-24,-25), and BA21 (MNI: 62,-32,-23) compared to sNSC and controls (P < 0.001). The sNSC has a unique visuospatial defect, compared to ADHD, created by decreased connectivity to BA31 (MNI: -3,-68,37), BA7 (MNI: -4,-68,41), BA19 (MNI: 0,-83,31), visual association cortex (MNI: -4,-78,22), and primary visual cortex (MNI: 7,-74,21) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients born with sNSC have different neural connections than children born with ADHD. Patients born with sNSC have decreased connections in areas of visual processing and increased connections in areas of attention and auditory processing than patients with ADHD. Therefore, children with sagittal craniosynsotosis may have learning difficulties that, similar, yet different from ADHD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".