MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096182254 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu034

The Relationship Between Parental Catastrophizing About Child Pain and Distress in Response to Medical Procedures in the Context of Childhood Cancer Treatment: A Longitudinal Analysis

2014· article· en· W2096182254 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Line Caes, Liesbet Goubert, Paul Devos, Joris Verlooy, Yves Benoît, Tine Vervoort

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDistressContext (archaeology)ModerationMedicinePediatric cancerClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Children with leukemia frequently undergo invasive medical procedures, such as lumbar punctures (LPs) and bone marrow aspirations (BMAs). To date, cross-sectional evidence indicates that LP/BMA procedures continue to elicit distress over the course of treatment in children and parents. METHOD: The current study used prospective analyses investigating in 28 children diagnosed with leukemia, the course of parental and child distress when confronted with consecutive LP/BMA procedures and potential moderation by catastrophic thinking. Parents' level of catastrophic thoughts was assessed before the first treatment-related LP/BMA, while child and parent distress was reported on after each LP/BMA procedure. RESULTS: Whereas parental distress decreased over time among low catastrophizing parents, LP/BMA procedures remained highly distressing for high catastrophizing parents. Child distress during LP/BMA procedures increased over time and was positively related with parental distress. CONCLUSION: These findings stress the importance of targeting child and parent distress as early as possible in treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207