Quality of life in adolescents and young adults with CHD is not reduced: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies assessing quality of life in adolescents and young adults born with CHD compared with age-matched controls. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of the literature published in Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library's Database (1990-2013); two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality assessment of studies. A random effects meta-analysis model was used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2-test. RESULTS: We included 18 studies with 1786 patients. The studies were of acceptable-to-good quality. The meta-analysis of six studies on quality of life showed no significant difference - mean difference: -1.31; 95% confidence intervals: -6.51 to +3.89, I2=90.9% - between adolescents and young adults with CHD and controls. Similar results were found in 10 studies not eligible for the meta-analysis. In subdomains, it seems that patients had reduced physical quality of life; however, social functioning was comparable or better compared with controls. CONCLUSION: For the first time in a meta-analysis, we have shown that quality of life in adolescents and young adults with CHD is not reduced when compared with age-matched controls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it