Quality of life among adolescents with cerebral palsy: what does the literature tell us?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review describes trends in quality of life (QOL) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP). Twenty original articles were identified by a structured search of multiple databases and grouped by design. Categories included descriptive cross-sectional studies (n=8), measurement validation studies (n=9), and exploratory qualitative studies (n=3). Several trends were apparent. First, individuals with CP are reported to have decreased QOL and HRQOL compared with a normative population in some but not all areas of well-being. Second, functional status measures such as the Gross Motor Function Classification System are reliable indicators of variations in physical function, but do not correlate consistently with psychosocial well-being. Third, although adolescents with CP have different life issues than adults or children, limited research on factors associated with QOL and HRQOL has been described for this age range. We recommend that clinicians and researchers interested in assessing well-being among adolescents with CP include participants from across the spectrum of motor impairment, allow adolescents to self-report whenever possible, and assess adolescents independently, rather than including them with individuals from other age groups or clinical populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".