Pediatric Brain Tumor Survivors’ Understanding of Friendships: A Qualitative Analysis of ADOS-2 Interview Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric brain tumor survivors (PBTS) are at risk of experiencing social competence challenges, but only a limited number of studies have used a qualitative approach to understand their social relationships. We examined PBTS responses to social interview questions within the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd edition (ADOS-2), which includes questions related to their understanding of their own relationships, as well as the construct of friendship more generally. METHODS: Twenty-four PBTS (ages 9-17 years; M = 14.2 years from diagnosis; 50% male; 42% received radiation treatment) completed the ADOS-2. ADOS-2 social interview responses were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were derived using an inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: PBTS reported that they considered trust, acceptance, respect, emotional support, and spending time together to be important aspects of friendships in general. When describing their own social relationships, some PBTS noted a lack of intimacy or closeness, spending time with their friends almost exclusively at school, with structured activities outside of school being an additional basis for friendship. Challenges to their social relationships included loneliness and reliance on family for social support, experiences of teasing and bullying, social skills deficits, and lack of insight into social situations. CONCLUSION: Although PBTS were able to acknowledge many important qualities of friendships in general (e.g., trust, emotional support), these were not necessarily reported in their own friendships. PBTS also appeared to have difficulty identifying whether someone was their friend. These findings offer potential opportunities for supporting PBTS in achieving friendships consistent with their conception of this important relationship.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".