Quality of life and health‐related quality of life of adolescents with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed quality of life (QOL) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of 203 adolescents with cerebral palsy (111 males, 92 females; mean age 16y [SD 1y 9mo]). Participants were classified using the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), as Level I (n=60), Level II (n=33), Level III (n=28), Level IV (n=50), or Level V (n=32). QOL was assessed by self (66.5%) or by proxy (33.5%) with the Quality of Life Instrument for People With Developmental Disabilities, which asks about the importance and satisfaction associated with the QOL domains of Being, Belonging, and Becoming; HRQOL was captured through proxy reports with the Health Utilities Index, Mark 3 (HUI3), which characterizes health in terms of eight attributes, each having five or six ordered levels of function. GMFCS level was not a source of variation for QOL domain scores but was significantly associated with the eight HRQOL attributes and overall HUI3 utility scores (p<0.05). Some QOL domain scores varied significantly by type of respondent (self vs proxy; p<0.05). Overall HUI3 utility values were significantly but weakly correlated with QOL Instrument scores for Being (r=0.37), Belonging (r=0.17), Becoming (r=0.20), and Overall QOL (r=0.28), and thus explain up to 14% of the variance (r(2)). These findings suggest that although QOL and HRQOL are somewhat related conceptually, they are different constructs and need to be considered as separate dimensions of the lives of people with functional limitations.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".