Pectus Carinatum Evaluation Questionnaire (PCEQ): a novel tool to improve the follow-up in patients treated with brace compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".