What do parents know about the malformations afflicting the hearts of their children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, medical professionals have entrusted the parents of children with chronic illness with the task of imparting knowledge about the illness to the children. This practice assumes that parents understand the illness, and that they pass on their knowledge in a manner appropriate for the individual child. The aim of our study was to assess the knowledge that parents of children with a cardiac defect have about the malformation in the heart of their child. We sent a modified version of the Leuven questionnaire to 350 families. The questionnaire was filled in and sent back to our centre by 148 families. Parents showed a good knowledge of the name and anatomical characteristics of the cardiac disease suffered by their child. Parents with a child taking drugs were not very knowledgeable about the regime, side effects, and interaction with other drugs or food. Only one-quarter of the parents knew the definition of endocarditis, although almost two-fifths were aware that unexplained fever for more than 5 days was the most typical symptom. Less than half of the parents knew that endocarditis could recur. About two-fifths of parents knew the real possibility of their child being involved in competitive sports; but almost half of parents were unable to answer this question. The poor knowledge about particular aspects of the disease, treatment, and preventive measures revealed by our parents may have major consequences. The results of our study are relevant to general daily clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 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".