Support, information, and integration of genetics for children with congenital lower limb deficiencies in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Children and families affected by congenital limb deficiencies (CLD) require a unique level of emotional support from diagnosis through to adolescence. The following study aims to collect data on Canadian paediatric patients affected by a CLD followed at BC Children's Hospital (BCCH), Department of Orthopaedics. METHODS: Parents of children with a CLD were asked to complete a written questionnaire examining their experiences. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected concerning parent satisfaction with patient referrals, emotional support, and knowledge of their child's diagnosis. RESULTS: Twenty-five completed questionnaires were returned. Fifty per cent of the parents reported they were either very satisfied, or satisfied, with the emotional support provided by health care providers (HCPs). Twenty-five per cent of the parents were unsatisfied with the emotional support received by HCPs. Forty-eight per cent of the parents could not recall the specific name of their child's diagnosis; 20% of the parents reported their child did not have diagnosis. All the patients in our study had received a clinical diagnosis. Twenty-eight per cent of the parents in this study were also seen in medical genetics. CONCLUSIONS: Families require additional resources for emotional support, peer support, and referrals to support organizations. Gaps in parent knowledge regarding their child's CLD suggest the need for formalized communication strategies for HCPs. Furthermore, patients with CLDs and their families may benefit from improved communication between orthopaedic and medical genetic services at the time of diagnosis. Integration of genetic counsellors may improve emotional supports and education for families with regards to testing and reproductive planning.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".