Health-Related Quality of Life of Children Aged 11 to 14 Years with Orofacial Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 11- to 14-year-old children with orofacial conditions. DESIGN: Thirty-nine patients with orofacial conditions were compared with 32 patients with dental caries. OUTCOME MEASURE: The multidimensional 37-item Child Perceptions Questionnaire for 11- to 14-year-old children (CPQ(11-14)). This forms one component of the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire. RESULTS: The orofacial group had slightly higher scores on the CPQ(11-14) than the dental group (p < .05). The scores were slightly to moderately higher on the functional limitations (p < .01) and social well-being (p < .01) domains. The groups did not differ with respect to oral symptoms or emotional well-being. Mouth breathing, problems with speech, missing school, being teased, and being asked questions about their condition were the only issues reported more frequently by the orofacial group (p < .01). There was no evidence of social inhibition or withdrawal in the orofacial group. The children with orofacial conditions rated their oral health better than the children with dental decay (p < .05). In both groups, the majority of children reported that their condition had little impact on their life overall. CONCLUSIONS: Based on CPQ(11-14) scores, there were few differences in the HRQoL of 11- to 14-year-old children with orofacial conditions, compared with children with dental caries. This suggests that the majority of these children are well adjusted and able to cope with the adversities they experience as a result of their conditions. This may reflect the quality of the team approach used at the treatment setting at which they were recruited.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".