Quality of life in osteogenesis imperfecta: A mixed‐methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical interventions and research have mostly focused on the orthopedic, genetic, and pharmacological outcomes of individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), and although quality of life (QoL) has gained recognition as an important patient-outcome, it has received little attention in individuals with OI. This mixed-methods systematic review of the literature included five search engines and identified a total of 212 articles. Once study eligibility was reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this mixed-methods review (9 quantitative and 1 qualitative). Among the 10 included QoL studies, six reported on children with OI, three on adults with OI, and one on the parents of children with OI. Physical QoL in children and adults with OI appears to be less than that of the general population, with individuals with more severe OI types reporting worse QoL. On the other hand, mental and psychosocial QoL is the same or better in individuals with OI than that of the general population. Pain, scoliosis activity limitations and participation restrictions due to decreased function are associated with lower levels of physical QoL. Researchers must agree on a definition of QoL as it relates to OI and use validated measures appropriate for evaluating QoL in OI. Pediatric studies should consider both the child and the parent's QOL perceptions as these may differ. QoL in the adult population should not be dismissed in order to offer proper client-centered interventions throughout the lifespan.
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 | 0.019 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".