The Ventricular Assist Device in the Life of the Child: A Phenomenological Pediatric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is it like for a child to live with an artificial heart? The use of some medical therapies in children requires developmental considerations, is associated with psychosocial consequences, and calls for ethical sensitivities. A critical case is the ventricular assist device (VAD), a mechanical pump used to support the functioning of a failing heart. As a pediatric therapy, the device can be used as a temporary solution for poor heart function, a bridge to transplantation or recovery, or as a destination therapy. While the mechanical-technical operation of the VAD is well understood, the clinical-technical aspects of young people living with this device are largely unexplored. Drawing on interviews of school-aged children, the aim of this phenomenological study is to explore how a VAD may structure or condition a child's meaningful experience of their world outside the hospital. The driveline of an implanted VAD is the peripheral attachment, extruding through the skin to connect the controller-power supply. The materiality of the device may be interruptive, restrictive, and disturbing to the psycho-physical being and sense of self-identity of the child as a child. And while a child equipped with a VAD is not necessarily conspicuous among other children, the child may experience the device as an exposing presence, while living with the worry of a caregiver who takes on the role not simply of parent but of watchful health professional. A phenomenological understanding of the VAD should assist parents and caregiving health professionals knowing how to deal with specific issues arising in the life of the VAD child.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".