QOL-01. LONGITUDINAL COMPARISON OF NEUROCOGNITIVE TRAJECTORIES IN PEDIATRIC MEDULLOBLASTOMA PATIENTS TREATED WITH PROTON VERSUS PHOTON RADIOTHERAPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE By reducing dose to normal brain tissue, proton radiotherapy (PRT) may lessen neurocognitive risk traditionally associated with photon radiotherapy (XRT). We examined change in neurocognitive scores over time in pediatric medulloblastoma patients treated with PRT versus XRT. METHODS Neurocognitive scores from 79 patients (37 PRT, 42 XRT) were examined. Patients were treated between 2007–2018 on the same treatment protocols that differed only by craniospinal modality (PRT versus XRT). Change in scores over time since diagnosis were compared between groups. RESULTS Groups were similar on most demographic/clinical variables: sex (67.1% male), age at diagnosis (mean 8.6 years), CSI dose (median 23.4 Gy), length of follow-up (mean 4.3 years), and parental education (mean 14.3 years). Boost dose (p<0.001) and margin (p=0.001) differed between groups. Adjusting for covariates, the PRT group exhibited superior outcomes in global IQ, perceptual reasoning, and working memory versus the XRT group (all p<0.05). The XRT group exhibited significant decline in global IQ, working memory, and processing speed (all p<0.05). The PRT group exhibited stable scores in all domains except processing speed (p=0.003). Posterior fossa syndrome imparted risk independent of modality. CONCLUSION This is the first study comparing neurocognitive trajectories between pediatric patients treated for medulloblastoma with PRT versus XRT on comparable, contemporary protocols. PRT was associated with more favorable neurocognitive outcomes in most domains compared to XRT, although processing speed emerged as vulnerable in both groups. This is the strongest evidence to date of an intellectual sparing advantage with PRT in the treatment of pediatric medulloblastoma.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".