Health-Related Quality of Life in Pediatric Cardiac Extracorporeal Life Support Survivors*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the health-related quality of life of children who received cardiac extracorporeal life support. We hypothesized that extracorporeal life support survivors have lower health-related quality-of-life scores when compared with a healthy sample, with children with chronic conditions, and with children who had surgery for congenital heart disease and did not receive extracorporeal life support. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Stollery Children's Hospital and Complex Pediatric Therapies Follow-up Program clinics. PATIENTS: Children less than or 5 years old with diagnosis of cardiac disease (congenital or acquired) who received extracorporeal life support at the Stollery Children's Hospital from 1999 to 2009. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Health-related quality of life was assessed using the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales completed by the children's parents at the time of follow-up. Forty-seven cardiac extracorporeal life support survivors had their health-related quality of life assessed at a median age of 4 years. Compared with a healthy sample, children who received venoarterial extracorporeal life support have significantly lower PedsQL (64.9 vs 82.2; p < 0.0001). The PedsQL scores of children who received extracorporeal life support were also significantly lower than those of children with chronic health conditions (64.9 vs 73.1; p = 0.007). Compared with children with congenital heart disease who underwent cardiac surgery early in infancy and who did not receive extracorporeal life support, extracorporeal life support survivors had significantly lower PedsQL scores (64.9 vs 81.1; p < 0.0001). Multiple linear regression analysis found an independent association between both higher inotrope score in the first 24 hours of extracorporeal life support and longer hospital length of stay, with lower PedsQL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric cardiac extracorporeal life support survivors showed lower health-related quality of life than healthy children, children with chronic conditions, and children with congenital heart disease who did not receive extracorporeal life support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".