A Multisite Study Investigating Child and Parent Proxy Reported Quality of Life in Children With Cleft Lip and/or Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This observational, multisite cohort study explored health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P), including interrater agreement and ratings for this group relative to clinical cutoff scores and published means for healthy and chronically ill children. Participants (338 children ages 8-10 years, 45.9% male and their parents, 82.0% female) across 6 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales (PedsQL). Intraclass correlation revealed poor interrater agreement for most HRQoL domains. Although ratings were generally higher than those expected for children with a chronic illness, child ratings were below healthy means for school functioning, and parent proxy ratings were below healthy means for all domains except physical functioning. Lower ratings consistent with chronic illness means were found for self-reported emotional and psychosocial functioning in children with cleft lip and palate (CLP), as well as parent proxy-reported emotional, school, and psychosocial functioning for children with cleft palate (CP). Scores were most likely to be in the clinical range for children with CP for social, school, and total functioning. Although parent proxy report provides important information about observed functioning, poor interrater agreement indicates that both child and parent proxy reported HRQoL should be included in outcomes assessment for CL/P. HRQoL ratings may be higher for children with CL/P compared to youth with other chronic illnesses, but psychosocial functioning may be negatively impacted when compared with healthy youth, particularly for emotional, social, and school functioning in children with CLP or CP.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".