Elucidating children’s understanding of brachial plexus birth injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facilitating children’s understanding of their medical condition can improve health outcomes and psychosocial well-being. To inform how medical information is delivered, an interpretive qualitative approach was used to explore children’s understanding of their brachial plexus birth injury. In-depth interviews of children with brachial plexus birth injuries ( n = 8) and their caregivers ( n = 10) were conducted individually and as a child-caregiver dyad. Thematic analysis of interview data found that children primarily understood their injury through lived experiences of functional and psychosocial concerns related to movement and appearance of the affected limb, rather than medical information. Children’s ability to learn about diagnostic and prognostic information was influenced by age, emotional readiness, and background knowledge. In receiving information about their medical condition, children needed greater support in understanding their prognosis and its implications on their future. These narratives indicate the importance of addressing the primary functional and psychosocial concerns to contextualize medical information and ascertain the emotional readiness of children with brachial plexus birth injuries in information delivery approaches.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".