Can children with spina bifida and muscular dystrophy participate in their own health status evaluations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outcomes movement has emphasized the importance of the patient in evaluating treatment outcome. However, concern has been raised about the ability of children, particularly those with multisystem disease, to evaluate their disability. PURPOSE: To determine whether children with spina bifida and muscular dystrophy and their parents agree when asked about the relative difficulty of daily activities and the severity of symptoms experienced by the child. METHODS: First, a list of symptoms and activity restrictions was generated from the literature, clinicians, and interviews with families with spina bifida and muscular dystrophy. Second, another group of parents and children with spina bifida (with hip dislocation or scoliosis) and with muscular dystrophy (with scoliosis), including those before and after surgery, independently rated the severity and importance of their objective and subjective complaints. RESULTS: The correlation between parents and their children was high for both objective (median Spearman's = 0.70; standard deviation [SD] = ±0.17; range = -0.05-1.00) and subjective (median Spearman's = 0.76; SD = ±0.14; range = 0.13-1.00) complaints, with an overall excellent level of agreement (Kappa = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73, 0.76). CONCLUSION: Children with spina bifida and muscular dystrophy are capable of understanding and assessing their disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".