Anxiety and Depression Screening of Youth in Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension Clinic: A Multi‐Center, Cross‐Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Children with chronic diseases, including pulmonary hypertension (PH), have an increased risk of anxiety and depression (AD), impacting mental health (MH), and quality of life (QoL). We sought to characterize the prevalence of AD in pediatric PH and identify associated factors. We developed a prospective cross‐sectional study with 10 Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension Network (PPHNet) centers. Eligible subjects aged 12–21, diagnosed with PH, and English or Spanish speaking, completed validated AD screening questionnaires during routine outpatient clinic visits. Caregivers provided socioeconomic status (SES) data and MH history via survey. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were analyzed using standard descriptive statistics. Eighty‐eight patients were enrolled (female = 54, 61%). Forty‐six (51.7%) identified at least mild symptoms of AD. Females were more likely to report AD than males (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.11–6.61, p = 0.030). There were no significant associations between AD and PH severity, MH history, family dynamics, SES status, race, or ethnicity. Twenty‐seven of those patients (58.7%) received MH education/counseling by MH professionals; ten (21.7%) were referred to MH providers, and nine patients (19.6%) were assessed for suicide safety. Adolescents with PH have a high prevalence of AD. Female patients had increased AD compared to male patients; no other predictors were linked to the prevalence of AD. Routine AD screening should be integrated into outpatient PH clinic visits with a focus on psychosocial support for young females diagnosed with PH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".