Distinction of quality of life, health related quality of life, and health status in children referred for rheumatologic care.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current health status measures [sometimes called quality of life (QOL) measures] are based on the values of their designers. QOL, though, reflects the idiosyncratic values of each individual. We investigated whether children referred for rheumatologic care differentiate between the concepts of health related quality of life (HRQOL), overall QOL, and health status. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two consecutive children seen at a pediatric rheumatology referral clinic completed a new global self-report quality of life scale (Quality of My Life), a functional impairment scale (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire), and a disease severity visual analog scale. Sixty children were seen for a followup assessment. RESULTS: HRQOL was somewhat lower than overall QOL (median 6.6 vs 8.6 out of 10; respectively) in this sample of patients. Our subjects did differentiate between overall QOL and HRQOL and health status. Health status, as measured by disease severity, accounted for only a moderate amount of variability in HRQOL (R2 = 0.25, p< or =0.0001). Health status measured by functional disability accounted for even less of the variability in HRQOL (R2 = 0.047, p = 0.013). Similarly, HRQOL accounted for only a moderate amount of the variability seen in overall QOL (R2 = 0.31, p< or =0.0001). CONCLUSION: The goal of most health professionals is to improve their patients' overall QOL. QOL, though, appears to be a broad and idiosyncratic construct affected only moderately by health. Health status, global HRQOL, and overall QOL all provide independent information. All 3 measures should be considered for use in research studies. HRQOL and overall QOL reflect patients' own values, and therefore may offer important information for clinicians in addition to health status.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it