Quality of life of children with neurological impairment who receive a fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with neurological impairment (NI) commonly have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treated with a fundoplication. The impact of this procedure on quality of life is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To examine the quality of life of children with NI who have received a fundoplication for GERD and of their caregivers. METHODS: The study was a prospective cohort study of children with NI and GERD who underwent a fundoplication at a children's hospital between January 1, 2005, and July 7, 2006. Quality of life of the children was assessed with the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) and of the caregivers with the Short-Form Health Survey Status (SF-36) and Parenting Stress Index (PSI), both at baseline and 1 month after fundoplication. Functional status was assessed using the WeeFIM. Repeated-measures analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-four of the 63 parents (70%) were enrolled. The median WeeFIM score was 31.2 versus the age-normal score of 83 (P = .001). Compared with the baseline scores, mean CHQ scores improved over 1 month in the domains of bodily pain (32.8 vs. 47.5, P = .01), role limitations-physical (30.6 vs. 56.6, P = .01), mental health (62.7 vs. 70.6, P = .01), family limitation of activities (43.3 vs. 55.1, P = .03), and parental time (43.0 vs. 55.3, P = .03). The parental SF-36 domain of vitality improved from baseline over 1 month (41.3 vs. 48.2, P = .001), but there were no changes from baseline in Parenting Stress scores. CONCLUSIONS: Parents reported that the quality of life of children with NI who receive a fundoplication for GERD was improved from baseline in several domains 1 month after surgery. The quality of life and stress of caregivers did not improve in nearly all domains, at least in the short term.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".