Concordance Between Couples Reporting Their Child’s Quality of Life and Their Decision Making in Pediatric Oncology Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In children 18 years and younger with cancer and no reasonable chance for cure the authors used a cross-sectional study design to (1) describe concordance between fathers' and mothers' evaluation of quality of life (QoL) and (2) determine parental correlation for how factors such as hope, anticipated QoL, and prolonged survival time influence decisions between supportive care alone versus aggressive chemotherapy. Both parents of 13 children performed PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales, Acute Cancer Module, and Multidimensional Fatigue Scale. Concordance was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Parents reported preferences of supportive care versus aggressive chemotherapy in a hypothetical scenario and rated factors that influenced decision making. Concordance was variable across QoL domains, better for physical health (ICC = 0.46), nausea (ICC = 0.61), general fatigue (ICC = 0.50), and sleep/rest fatigue (ICC = 0.76). Correlation was variable between parents on the influence of factors on their decision, with particularly poor correlation for importance of hope (r = -0.24). Variable concordance was reported between parental assessment of child QoL and factors influencing their decision making, suggesting parents may have different perspectives in decision making and that understanding both is important in clinical care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".