Theory of Mind after Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review aims to synthesize existing literature regarding theory of mind (ToM) outcomes, the neuropathology associated with ToM outcomes, and the relationship between ToM outcomes and social functioning in children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury (TBI). We searched MEDLINE® and PsycINFO databases to identify all literature that examined ToM following pediatric TBI until July 2019. A total of 29 articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the results. These articles examined a variety of aspects of ToM, which could be broadly grouped into those focused on cognitive, cognitive-affective, and pragmatic factors. The existing literature suggests that children and adolescents with TBI, compared with their typically developing peers and peers with orthopedic injuries, are more likely to have deficits in ToM. The evidence further shows that the age at which brain injury occurs contributes to ToM disruption. Neuroimaging techniques have offered crucial insights into how TBI may impact ToM performance in children and adolescents. Finally, this review provides evidence that disruption in ToM plays a role in the difficulties in social functioning demonstrated by children and adolescents with TBI. Limitations and gaps in the existing literature warrant future research in this field.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".