Health-related quality of life in children with high-functioning autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health-related quality of life of school-aged children with high-functioning autism is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to compare the health-related quality of life of children with high-functioning autism to that of typically developing peers and to compare child-self and parent-proxy reports of health-related quality of life of children. A cross-sectional study of children with high-functioning autism (n = 30) and peers (n = 31) was conducted using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Children with high-functioning autism had significantly poorer health-related quality of life than peers whether reported by themselves (p < .001) or their parents (p < .001), although disagreement (intra-class coefficient = -.075) between children and parental scores suggested variance in points of view. This study specifically investigated health-related quality of life in children with high-functioning autism as compared to a sample of peers, from the child's perspective. It strengthens earlier findings that children with high-functioning autism experience poorer health-related quality of life than those without this disorder and points to the importance of clinicians working with families to identify areas in a child's life that promote or hinder their sense of well-being.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".