MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883091022 · doi:10.1177/1367493518787319

Quality of life evaluation in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis using PedsQL

2018· article· en· W2883091022 on OpenAlexaff
Marcos Almeida Matos, Fábio Ferri-de-Barros, Roberto Guarniero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Health Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaQuality of life (healthcare)MedicinePsychosocialInternal consistencyPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyPsychometricsPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) is a rare and neglected disorder. Only a few studies to date have focused on humanistic impacts of the disease, particularly health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of our research is to (1) evaluate HRQOL in Brazilian patients with MPS and (2) assess the validity of the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales (PedsQL) in this specific disease. We performed an analytical cross-sectional study using the Brazilian Portuguese version of the PedsQL in 22 patients with MPS between the ages of 8 and 21. With regard to assessing the validity of the PedsQL for MPS, we evaluated internal consistency using Cronbach's α coefficient and reliability using the Spearman-Brown estimate of agreement. The mean HRQOL score in our sample was 63.6 points. The worst score was obtained in the Psychosocial domain (61.9) on account of interference with school (56.1), while the Physical Health domain had the highest score (67.6). The total PedsQL internal consistency was .764 points. The Physical Health domain obtained the highest internal consistency (.914), whereas the Psychosocial Health domain obtained the lowest one (.754). MPS was demonstrated to decrease HRQOL, and PedsQL seems to be a valid instrument to perform this kind of analysis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Health CareSame topicLysosomal Storage Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207