Influence of Childhood Scleroderma on Physical Function and Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: there have been few studies of quality of life in childhood scleroderma and these focused predominantly on self-perception and the influence of skin lesions. Our cross-sectional study aimed to describe the influence of childhood scleroderma on physical function and quality of life in relation to clinical and demographic measures. METHODS: children with either localized scleroderma or systemic sclerosis (SSc) attending pediatric rheumatology clinics, together with their parents or guardians, were asked to complete a set of 4 validated measures. Clinical and demographic data were provided by consultant pediatric rheumatologists. RESULTS: in total, 28 children and their parents/guardians participated in the study (68% female, median age 13 yrs; 86% localized scleroderma, 14% SSc). The median Child Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) score was 0.1 (range 0-3, 0 indicating no impairment), the median Child Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 5 (range 0-30, 0 indicating no impairment), and the median Child Quality of Life Questionnaire (CQOL) function score was 26 (range 0-105, 0 indicating no impairment). Family activity, measured by the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ-PF50), was also moderately impaired by scleroderma, with a median score of 83 (0-100, 100 indicating no impairment). CONCLUSION: scleroderma had only a moderate effect on quality of life and physical function as measured by the 4 validated instruments. Although a small number of children reported greater impairment, this is an encouraging finding, given its potential disfiguring and debilitating effects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".