Cornelia de Lange syndrome: Parental preferences regarding the provision of medical information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We surveyed 57 caregivers of children with Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) using a self-report questionnaire designed to elicit their experiences with receiving information regarding health complications associated with this multisystem disorder. Their most frequent sources of information at the time of diagnosis were a health care provider (86%) and the CdLS Foundation (72%). Although most caregivers (82%) indicated a desire to receive information about all possible CdLS related health complications, on average they recalled receiving information on only 64% of their child's current or future health complications. For two of the top three complications (as ranked by caregivers), information was available to fewer than half of the caregivers at diagnosis. Only 40% of caregivers were satisfied with the amount of information received at diagnosis, while only 45% felt that the information they received was useful. Caregivers indicated a preference for receiving information in written format (59%) or verbally (39%). Our results indicate that caregivers of children with CdLS report a high need for information at diagnosis, regarding their child's actual or potential health complications. Dissatisfaction may result both from a deficiency in information provided, as well as a mismatch between issues mentioned and those that caregivers deem most important. Caregivers may benefit maximally from receiving information in person at the time of diagnosis as well as having an additional written source of information. These findings highlight the importance of complementary sources of information for caregivers and are likely to be relevant for other multisystem disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".