Une approche modulaire d’évaluation de la qualité de vie en oncologie pédiatrique : les versions française et portugaise de l’Inventaire Systémique de Qualité de Vie pour Enfants (ISQV-E©)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study approaches the question of quality of life measure in paediatric oncology. The main aim is to compare the quality of life level of children (8-12 years) undergoing (T) and off (HT) oncological treatments by using the French and the Portuguese modular versions of the Child Quality of Life Systemic Inventory (QLSI-C©). The Portuguese sample consists of 26 children T and 14 HT while the Belgian sample includes 20 children T and 35 HT. Results demonstrate statistically significant differences between the T and HT groups, particularly for the French version of the QLSI-C©. They also give evidence of the influence of some clinical and sociodemographic variables on the global quality of life score, mainly for the Portuguese version of the QLSI-C©. In conclusion, findings demonstrate the clinical interest of French and Portuguese versions of the QLSI-C© and their capacity to distinguish children undergoing oncological treatments from children off these treatments.
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 | 0.062 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".