Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Survivors of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of survivors of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is presently unknown. Literature prior to 2015 suggests that CDH survivors have worse HRQoL compared with the general population. However, due to changes in the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of CDH patients, this may no longer be true. The objective of this review was to determine what recent literature suggests regarding the HRQoL of CDH survivors. We reviewed all studies published between April 9, 2015, and April 6, 2020, that described the HRQoL of CDH survivors. Studies were identified using PubMed, and the references of the identified papers were searched for additional studies eligible for inclusion. Seven studies describing HRQoL in CDH survivors using validated measures of HRQoL for children, PedsQL (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory), KIDSCREEN-52, and Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale - School Version were examined. The findings were disparate. One study suggested that CDH survivors had better than average HRQoL scores, three studies found patients and controls had equivalent scores, and two studies reported poor outcomes for CDH patients. The final study found no effect of disease severity on HRQoL, as determined by prenatal ultrasound. Evidence published between 2015 and 2020 suggests that CDH patients have an HRQoL equivalent to the general population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".