Surgical Repair of Pectus Excavatum Markedly Improves Body Image and Perceived Ability for Physical Activity: Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated changes in both physical and psychosocial quality of life reported by the parent and child after surgical repair of pectus excavatum. METHODS: As part of a multicenter study of pectus excavatum, a previously validated tool called the Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire was administered by the research coordinator, via telephone, to parents and patients (8-21 years of age) before and 1 year after surgery. Eleven North American children's hospitals participated. From 2001 to 2006, 264 patients and 291 parents completed the initial questionnaire, and 247 patients and 274 parents completed the postoperative questionnaire. Responses used a Likert-type scale of 1 to 4, reflecting the extent or frequency of a particular experience, with higher values conveying less-desirable experience. RESULTS: Preoperative psychosocial functioning was unrelated to objective pectus excavatum severity (computed tomographic index). Patients and their parents reported significant positive postoperative changes. Improvements occurred in both physical and psychosocial functioning, including less social self-consciousness and a more-favorable body image. For children, the body image component improved from 2.30+/-0.62 (mean+/-SD) to 1.40+/-0.42 after surgery and the physical difficulties component improved from 2.11+/-0.82 to 1.37+/-0.44. For the parent questionnaire, the child's emotional difficulties improved from 1.81+/-0.70 to 1.24+/-0.36, social self-consciousness improved from 2.86+/-1.03 to 1.33+/-0.68, and physical difficulties improved from 2.14+/-0.75 to 1.32+/-0.39. Ninety-seven percent of patients thought that surgery improved how their chest looked. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical repair of pectus excavatum can significantly improve the body image difficulties and limitations on physical activity experienced by patients. These results should prompt physicians to consider the physiologic and psychological implications of pectus excavatum just as they would any other physical deformity known to have such consequences.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".