Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the results, we can conclude that there is a significant improvement in the perceived quality of life among parents and teens from the beginning of the program to the end, as well as from the start of phase I and the end.This is true of all scores except for the parent psychosocial summary score (α=0.074).Further research needs to be done to see whether these perceived gains are an accurate representation of quality of life among these youth, as well as whether these gains are sustained in the long-term. Analysis of group program outcomes of youth with severe complex obesitySevere complex obesity in youth has been linked to increased risk for a multitude of serious co-morbidities (including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, sleep apnea and orthopedic complications), psychosocial problems and overall reduced quality of life [1,2].Developing effective treatment plans to help mitigate some of these serious health concerns for youth with clinical obesity is extremely important.CHAL works with clinically obese youth in the Ottawa area as a branch of the Children's Hospital for Eastern Ontario. The centre runs group programs with the aim of improving quality of life, eating behaviors and other obesity related issues for these youth and preventing health issues in their future. Two of the groups, labeled Phase I and Phase II (attended in sequence, with youth attending Phase I followed by Phase II) were examined. The working question was: Does attendance to group programs at CHAL impact quality of life of youth who have severe complex obesity? The hypothesis is that quality of life should increase with participation in group. Results MethodologyMeasures of health-related quality of life were analyzed using the PedsQL 4.0 (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory) questionnaire, which is used as a tool for measuring quality of life in children and adolescents ages 2-18. The PedsQL consists of four subscales; physical, social, emotional and school. The physical health summary score is calculated from the physical subscale (8 items), and the psychosocial summary score is calculated from the average of scores of the other three subscales (5 each, for a total of 15 items). The total health summary score is calculated as an average of the four subscale scores. The questionnaires were administered to the youth and their parents at the first and last group sessions, thus providing data for pre and post group. The data was entered into the statistical database SPSS, and analyzed using this database.The reliability and validity of the PedsQL 4.0 summary scores have been confirmed for applicability to clinical practice and research, and mean summary scores for healthy populations have been identified as follows;Parent: total=87.61,physical=89.32,psychosocial=86.58Youth: total=83.00,physical=84.41,
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".