Cognitive Deficits in Pediatric Craniopharyngioma: An Updated Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Craniopharyngiomas (CP) are brain tumors that often occur in children and adolescent that results in many neurological and endocrinological disorders. The aim of this systematic review is to provide updated version of studies used to formalize standard tests used for cognitive impairment in pediatric patients with craniopharyngioma. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, EBSCO, ProQuest, Science Direct, Wiley Online, and Springer to identify studies assessing cognitive impairment in pediatric patients with craniopharyngioma. Academic and learning dysfunctions were reported in seven studies among 41 of 178 patients (23%). Visual–spatial deficits were reported in six studies. Speech and verbal dysfunctions were reported in three studies. Memory deficits were reported in eight studies among 61 of 197 patients (31%). Motor dysfunctions were reported in five studies. Sleep related issues were reported in four studies among 33 of 70 patients (47.1%). Patients with treated pediatric CP demonstrate a high incidence of neurological deficits including cognitive dysfunctions. Academic and learning dysfunctions, visual–spatial deficits, speech and verbal dysfunctions, memory deficits, and sleep-related issues were the most commonly reported cognitive deficits in the present study.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".