Sagittal craniosynostosis: a utility outcomes study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Sagittal craniosynostosis results in a characteristic scaphocephalic head shape that is typically corrected surgically during a child's 1st year of life. The authors' objective was to determine the potential impact of being born with sagittal craniosynostosis by using validated health state utility assessment measures. METHODS An online utility assessment was designed to generate health utility scores for scaphocephaly, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness using standardized utility assessment tools, namely the visual analog scale (VAS) and the standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO) tests. Utility scores were compared between health states using the Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Univariate regression was performed using age, sex, income, and education as independent predictors of utility scores. RESULTS Over a 2-month enrollment period, 122 participants completed the online survey. One hundred eighteen participants were eligible for analysis. Participants rated scaphocephaly due to sagittal craniosynostosis with significantly higher (p < 0.001) median utility scores (VAS 0.85, IQR 0.76-0.95; SG 0.92, IQR 0.84-0.98; TTO 0.91, IQR 0.84-0.95) than both monocular blindness (VAS 0.60, IQR 0.50-0.70; SG 0.84, IQR 0.68-0.94; TTO 0.84, IQR 0.67-0.91) and binocular blindness (VAS 0.25, IQR 0.20-0.40; SG 0.51, IQR 0.18-0.79; TTO 0.55, IQR 0.36-0.76). No differences were noted in utility scores based on participant age, sex, income, or education. CONCLUSIONS Using objective health state utility scores, authors of the current study demonstrated that the preoperatively perceived burden of scaphocephaly in a child's 1st year of life is less than that of monocular blindness. These relatively high utility scores for scaphocephaly suggest that the burden of disease as perceived by the general population is low and should inform surgeons' discussions when offering morbid corrective surgery, particularly when driven by aesthetic concerns.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".