MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136686112 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1726088

Cognitive Deficits in Pediatric Craniopharyngioma: An Updated Review

2021· article· en· W3136686112 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulrahman Al-Mirza, Omar Al-Taei, Tariq Al‐Saadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCraniopharyngiomaMedicineCognitive impairmentPediatricsAudiologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric NeurologySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207