Is “Treat your child normally” helpful advice for parents of survivors of treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developing technology affords children with complex congenitally malformed hearts a chance for survival. Parents gratefully pursue life-saving options on behalf of their children, despite the risks to the life of their child, and uncertainty about outcomes. Little is known about how mothers and fathers experience parenting a child whose new state as a survivor may include less than optimal developmental sequels. METHOD: Our study involved multiple interactive interviews with 9 mothers and 7 fathers of infants and preschool children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome who had survived the Norwood surgical approach. Qualitative methodology included grounded theory methods of simultaneous collection and analysis of data, and we used open and selective coding of transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Parents used normalization in the context of uncertainty regarding the ongoing survival of their child. Parents described their underweight children as being on their own growth curve, and viewed their developmental progress, however delayed, as reason for celebration, as they had been prepared for their child to die. CONCLUSION: There is growing evidence that children with congenitally malformed hearts who require surgical intervention during the first year of life may experience developmental delay. The use of normalization by their parents may be effective in decreasing their worry regarding the uncertain future faced by their child, but may negatively affect the developmental progress of the child if they do not seek resources to assist development. Advice from paediatric specialists for parents to view their children as normal needs to be balanced with assistance for parents to access services to support optimal growth and development of their child.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it