Health-related quality of life following cranioplasty – a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cranioplasty is a neurosurgical procedure that repairs a defect in the skull Coupled with the underlying pathology cranioplasty associated morbidity can have a large impact on patient quality of life, which is often poorly explored. The objective of this systematic review was to identify patient-reported outcomes evaluating health-related quality of life following cranioplasty. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021251543) and a systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2022. All studies reporting HRQoL following cranioplasty were included. Reporting was assessed using the ISOQOL checklist and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Johanna-Briggs Institute Scale, as appropriate. A total of 25 studies were included of which 20 were cross-sectional and 2 longitudinal. Most studies utilized study specific questionnaires and Likert scales to assess HRQoL. The studies found a significant improvement in physical functioning, social functioning, cosmetic outcome, and overall HRQoL following cranioplasty. Further longitudinal studies utilising validated measurement tools are required to better understand the effect of cranioplasty at a patient level.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it