Parental Health Literacy and Outcomes of Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the association of parental health literacy with treatment response among children with nephrotic syndrome. METHODS: This was a cohort study of children aged 1–18 with nephrotic syndrome and their parent. Health literacy was measured using the validated Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults assessing reading comprehension and numeracy. Outcomes included initial relapse-free period, frequently relapsing disease, relapse rate, second-line medication use, and complete remission after therapy. RESULTS: Of 190 parents, 80% had adequate health literacy (score >67 of 100), and higher scores were not correlated with higher education. Almost all achieved perfect numeracy scores (>86%); numeracy was not associated with outcomes. After adjusting for immigration, education, and income, higher reading comprehension scores (tertile 3) compared with lower scores (tertile 1) were significantly associated with lower risk of first relapse (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.94, P trend = .02), lower odds of frequently relapsing disease (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.21–0.70, P trend = .002), lower relapse rate (rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.80, P trend < .001), and higher odds of complete remission after both initial steroids and cyclophosphamide (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.36–3.16, P trend = .003; OR 5.97, 95% CI 2.42–14.7, P trend < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Lower parental health literacy, specifically reading comprehension, is associated with higher relapse rates among children with nephrotic syndrome and fewer achieving complete remission. This underscores the importance of assessing and targeting health literacy for chronic management of childhood-onset diseases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".