An Assessment of Quality-of-Life Following Tissue Expansion in Pediatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is limited data on the effects of tissue expansion (TE) surgery on quality-of-life (QOL) in pediatric patients. Evidence-based information may help clinicians, patients, and their families with treatment decision-making and post-operative expectations. This study explores QOL following TE in pediatric patients. Methods: A post-intervention QOL survey and retrospective chart review was performed. Patients who underwent TE at a pediatric tertiary hospital between October 2004 and March 2020 completed the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory or the Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Total scores range from −100 (worsened QOL) to +100 (improved QOL). Participants were also asked if they would recommend TE to other patients with the same indication. Results: The response rate was 38% (n = 20; 14 females, 6 males). The median QOL score was +17[−2,+49]. Higher QOL scores were found for TE indications of scar (+49) and alopecia (+40), compared to giant congenital melanocytic nevus (−2). Higher scores were also associated with shorter time in active treatment ( r = −0.65) and fewer complications ( r = −0.56). 18/20 participants would recommend TE. Participants whose QOL improved (n = 11, 55%) reported increased self-confidence, fitting in with peers, and improved function. Participants with unchanged or decreased QOL (n = 9, 45%) described a negative experience with residual scarring. However, 7/9 with unchanged or decreased QOL would still recommend TE. Conclusions: This preliminary descriptive study demonstrated variable QOL following TE. Patient and treatment-related factors impact QOL outcomes. Despite the range in QOL outcomes, the majority of participants would recommend TE. Further research evaluating QOL following TE is necessary to better understand this relationship.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".