Long‐term cognitive outcomes after cerebral sinovenous thrombosis in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess long-term cognitive function in children after cerebral sinovenous thrombosis (CSVT). METHOD: Children with CSVT, who had neuropsychological testing for intellectual ability, executive function, attention, language, or behavior, were included in a prospective observational study. Outcomes were compared with normative means using one-sample t-tests. Predictors of abnormal function were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Fifty children with CSVT were included (median age at diagnosis 2y 10mo, interquartile range 7d-6y 10mo; 35 males, 15 females). The median follow-up time was 4 years 2 months (interquartile range 2y 8mo-6y 4mo). Compared with normative means, children with CSVT had lower mean (± standard deviation) full-scale IQ, working memory, and processing speed scores (93.3±16, p=0.01; 93.6±16, p=0.04; 93.7±15.3, p=0.02 respectively). They also had lower scores in executive function, attention, and language domains. Refractory seizure at presentation was associated with a trend in behavioral problems (odds ratio [OR] 6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-46, p=0.07). Females were less likely to experience processing speed difficulties (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04-1.3, p=0.09). Incomplete recanalization was associated with a greater risk of abnormal verbal comprehension (OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.93-30.5, p=0.059). INTERPRETATION: Children with CSVT as a group performed below age expectations on standardized neuropsychological tests, although there was variability across individuals and cognitive domains. Larger studies are needed to evaluate predictors of cognitive deficits in children with CSVT.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".