LIFE AFTER VNS: PARENTS' PERSPECTIVES OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY AND EPILEPSY AFTER IMPLANTATION OF A VAGAL NERVE STIMULATOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify parent perceptions of quality of life changes in children with developmental delay and epilepsy after implantation of a vagal nerve stimulator and to investigate the relationship between reported quality of life changes and perceived changes in seizure frequency and duration following VNS placement. Methods: A qualitative approach was used to study aspects of quality of life (physical, affect/behavior, social, cognition and family interaction) in a convenience sample of 6 parents whose children had undergone VNS insertion in the last 12–36 months. All children had moderate to severe developmental delay. A semi-structured interview was used to gather data, with questions designed to elicit information about each of the quality of life domains. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and then analyzed for themes and sub-themes. Seizure histories were also collected from parent reports and clinic charts. Results: Although no children achieved complete seizure freedom, parents expressed decreased vigilance associated with a perceived reduction in seizure frequency or severity. Other themes that emerged included increased alertness and responsiveness to family and environment. This resulted in more time spent with the child and an increase in family cohesion. Conclusion: Children with moderate to severe developmental delay demonstrate quality of life changes associated with epilepsy treatment. This study highlights the importance of exploring quality of life outcomes in this population and may assist in the development of a more comprehensive quality of life assessment tool for children with epilepsy and moderate to severe developmental delay.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".