Health-Related Quality of Life and Family Function Following Pediatric Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicenter study compared health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and family function of pediatric liver transplant recipients to those of healthy children to determine if this population differed from a healthy population and to distinguish which pretransplant and posttransplant factors impact HRQOL and family function. HRQOL data from 102 patients achieving 2-year survival were collected with the Infant Toddler Quality of Life Instrument or the Child Health Questionnaire Parent Form 50 parent surveys. Family functioning was assessed with the Family Assessment Device (FAD) completed by each participant's family members. Demographic and clinical information were retrieved from the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplant database. Recipients 5 years of age and older scored lower than a normative sample in physical health (P < 0.001), general health (P < 0.001), parental emotional impact (P < 0.001), and disruption of family activities (P < 0.001). Younger children, 2 to 5 years of age, scored lower than controls in global health (P = 0.004) and general health perceptions (P < 0.001) but did not differ in subscales measuring physical and psychosocial outcomes. Univariate analysis among the subscales identified demographic but not clinical variables as significant predictors of HRQOL. Mean scores of FAD scales were below published thresholds indicating healthy family functioning. As reported in previous studies, parents of older recipients reported higher levels of stress, although their level of family function appears normal. Significant associations were also observed between FAD scores and demographic variables, suggesting that further investigation of the impact of race, parental marital status, and socio-economic status on the patient rehabilitation process is needed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".