MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253463773 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv198

Pectus Carinatum Evaluation Questionnaire (PCEQ): a novel tool to improve the follow-up in patients treated with brace compression

2015· article· en· W2253463773 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectus carinatumVarimax rotationMedicinePhysical therapyCronbach's alphaPolychoric correlationBraceSurgeryCorrelationPsychometricsPectus excavatumClinical psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: A questionnaire (Pectus Carinatum Evaluation Questionnaire, PCEQ) was developed to be applied in follow-up of patients with Pectus Carinatum (PC). After validation of the PCEQ, we aimed to quantify the compliance to brace compression and to assess factors that could influence this treatment in patients with PC. METHODS: From July 2008 to July 2014, 56 patients with PC were treated with the Calgary Protocol of compressive bracing at Paediatric Surgery Department of Hospital São João. Forty patients (71%) completed the questionnaire. The PCEQ was divided into four sections: (i) compliance; (ii) symptoms; (iii) social influence; (iv) activities. For the validation process of the PCEQ, principal components analysis (PCA), orthogonal varimax or oblimin rotation and Cronbach's α coefficient were used. To evaluate the association between compliance and other sections of the questionnaire, we estimated the Pearson's correlation between compliance factor scores ('Compliance Days' and 'Compliance Hours') and the final score of each new questionnaire component identified by PCA ('Chest Pain', 'Dyspnoea', 'Back Pain', 'Parents' Influence', 'Friends' Influence', 'Activities', 'Time To Compliance'). For the sections 'Symptoms', 'Social Influence' and 'Activities', we estimated final scores as the sum of the questions that constitute each component. For the section 'Compliance', the factor scores were estimated by the regression method. RESULTS: After PCA analysis, the PCEQ found nine different components with high reliability. When analysing the compliance of our study group, the final score for 'Activities' revealed a significant correlation with the factor score for 'Compliance Hours' (r = 0.382, P = 0.015). The final score for 'Time To Compliance' showed a significant correlation with both factor scores for 'Compliance Hours' (r = -0.765, P < 0.001) and 'Compliance Days' (r = -0.345, P < 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: The PCEQ seems to be an important tool to follow up patients with PC treated by brace compression. Practical steps, such as developing a tight schedule in the early follow-up period or applying the PCEQ in first visits after initiating brace therapy, can be taken in order to increase compliance with brace therapy and improve the quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it