Parent- Versus Child-Reported Functional Health Status After the Fontan Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare perceptions of functional health status between children who had undergone a Fontan procedure and their parents. METHODS: Fontan procedure survivors 10 to 18 years of age were included in the study if the child completed the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) and the parent completed the parent form to assess the child's functional health status. Comparisons were made between raw domain scores for the parent- and child-completed CHQs. RESULTS: Between March 2003 and April 2004, 1078 Fontan survivors were screened. Of the 546 eligible and consented patients, 354 were 10-18 years of age and 328 parent/child pairs completed the CHQs. Parents reported significantly lower scores (worse functioning) for their children than the children reported for themselves in the domains of physical functioning (P < .01), impact on school or activities from emotional and behavioral problems (P < .01), impact on school or activities from physical health issues (P < .01), general behavior (P < .01), mental health (P < .01), self-esteem (P < .01), and general health perceptions (P < .01). No significant differences were noted for the domains of bodily pain, family cohesiveness, or family activities. For the physical functioning domain, factors contributing to lower scores for parent versus child reports included pulmonary artery anomalies and fenestration at the time of the Fontan operation. Lower parent-reported scores also were associated with more noncardiac health problems in the child. CONCLUSIONS: Parents' perceptions of the functional health status of their children after the Fontan procedure were worse than the children's perceptions.
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".