Social adjustment in survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia without cranial radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate group differences in social adjustment in survivors of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) compared to survivor siblings and controls; identify disease-related predictors of social adjustment in survivors; and explore whether executive functioning explained differences in social adjustment across groups and between disease-related predictors. METHODS: Survivors of pediatric ALL (n = 38, average age at diagnosis = 4.27 years [SD = 1.97]; average time off treatment = 4.83 years [SD = 1.52]), one sibling (if available, n = 20), and one parent from each family were recruited from a long-term survivor clinic. Healthy age- and sex-matched controls (n = 38) and one parent from each family were recruited from the community. Parents completed the Behavioral Assessment System for Children, Parent Rating Scale (BASC-3) Social Withdrawal subscale as a measure of social adjustment, and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF-2) as a measure of executive function for each of their children. Multilevel modeling and mediation analysis were used to achieve the study aims. RESULTS: Parents reported that survivors had significantly worse social adjustment compared to controls (b = 6.34, p = .004), but not survivor siblings. Among survivors, greater time off treatment (b = 2.06, p = .058) and poorer executive functioning (b = 0.42, p = .006) were associated with worse social adjustment. Executive function did not mediate differences in social withdrawal between survivors and controls or the relationship between time off treatment and social withdrawal among survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of pediatric ALL presenting to follow-up programs should be screened for difficulties with social adjustment. Future research should examine treatment- and nontreatment-related factors contributing to poorer social outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".