864
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: No publications describe the health related quality of life (HRQL) in children with chromosomal abnormalities and congenital heart disease (CHD). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that children with chromosomal abnormalities will have lower HRQL scores compared to the normative population, and a matched cohort with the same CHD diagnosis. Methods: Prospective cohort study including infants with chromosomal abnormalities having cardiac surgery at <6 weeks of age (n=21) between July 200 and June 2005 at the Stollery Children’s Hospital. Patients who required extra-corporeal life support or heart transplant were excluded (n=3). HRQL was assessed at age 4 years using the PedsQLTM 4.0 Generic Core Scales, and compared with matched (by type of CHD) children who underwent cardiac surgery in infancy without chromosomal abnormalities and normative values for the same age. Results: Two children were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 16, 9 had deletion 22q11.2, 2 Down syndrome, 1 Turner’s syndrome, 2 1q21.1 deletion, 1 Cri du chat syndrome, 1 Cat eye syndrome. Compared to the matched children without chromosomal abnormalities, children with chromosomal abnormalities had significantly lower median Total PedsQLTM (75.0 vs. 84.6; p=0.03), Physical Summary scores (79.5 vs. 96.9; p=0.007), and School Functioning (68.5 vs. 83.0; p=0.037). The lower Psychosocial Summary (72.0 vs. 79.0; p=0.205) and Emotional Functioning (75.0 vs. 85.0; p=0.447) scores were not statistically significant. Social Functioning scores (77.5 vs. 75.0; p=0.57) were similar. Compared to normative data, children with chromosomal abnormalities and CHD had significantly lower mean Total PedsQLTM (71.3 vs. 87.3; p< 0.0001), Psychosocial Summary (70.3 vs. 86.1; p<0.0001), Physical Summary (74.3 vs. 89.2; p=0.0006), Social Functioning (74.0 vs. 87.7; p=0.001), School Functioning (61.4 vs. 85.4; p<0.0001), and Emotional Functioning (75.0 vs. 84.7; p=0.006) scores. Conclusions: HRQL was lower in children with chromosomal abnormalities compared to matched children with the same CHD without chromosomal abnormalities, and to a normative population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.550 | 0.445 |
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".