Lost in Translation: A Preliminary Examination of Phonological Processing, Language, and Reading in Childhood Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Children with epilepsy are at increased risk for language and reading difficulties. Phonological processing and language underlie reading success, yet their association with reading achievement in children with epilepsy is unknown. We assessed phonological processing, oral language, and reading in children (ages 6 to 12) with epilepsy (EP; n = 6), language problems (LP; n = 14), and typical development (TD; n = 15). The EP and LP group had lower scores on all measures compared with the TD group, with the EP group scoring the lowest on reading comprehension. Phonological processing followed by epilepsy diagnosis predicted reading decoding. Language followed by epilepsy diagnosis predicted reading comprehension. Thus, reading problems in children with epilepsy are not fully explained by their phonological processing or language deficits. Further research that considers other cognitive processes important for reading (e.g., executive function) in this population may help inform our understanding of their reading success.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".