MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417019252 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2742

Feasibility of collecting social determinants of health data in the frontline pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) trial AALL1731: A report from the Children's oncology group

2025· article· en· W4417019252 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Haley Newman, Paul Morgan, John A. Kairalla, Cindy Wang, Sunyu Kang, Sarah Alexander, Peter D. Cole, Iris Paltin, Colleen Kelly, Daniel J. Zheng, Rahela Aziz‐Bose, Puja J. Umaretiya, Mignon L. Loh, Elizabeth A. Raetz, Stephen P. Hunger, Meenakshi Devidas, David T. Teachey, Rachel E. Rau, Sumit Gupta, Kira Bona

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Cancer ResearchSickKids Foundation
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeurocognitiveClinical trialProxy (statistics)Meta-analysisCogDistressMEDLINELymphoblastic LeukemiaPediatric cancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background : Poverty-exposed children with B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) are more likely to relapse, and long-term survivors are more likely to suffer chronic health conditions including neurocognitive late effects. Caregivers of these children are twice as likely to experience severe psychological distress during ALL therapy. Sociodemographic data routinely collected on Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials have historically included race, ethnicity, insurance, and ZIP code. These data elements can proxy exposure to adverse social determinants of health (SDOH), including poverty, and identify outcome disparities—but are not modifiable targets for intervention. Whether SDOH data collection is feasible in a large scale, groupwide ALL trial is unknown. We report data from AALL1731, the first COG ALL trial to include systematic collection of parent-reported SDOH as part of an optional, longitudinal correlative study of neurocognitive late effects. Methods : AALL1731 (NCT03914625) enrolled children aged 1-9 years with NCI standard risk B-ALL from 6/2019 to 7/2024. In 9/2020, AALL1731 was amended to include an opt-in, longitudinal, correlative “Household Material Hardship (HMH) and Neurocognitive Late Effects” aim to evaluate the association between SDOH-exposures and neurocognitive late effects. The primary exposure of interest was HMH—defined as food, housing, utility or transportation insecurity. Participants who spoke English, Spanish or French, enrolled at a US or Canadian site, and without Down Syndrome were eligible to opt-in to the correlative study at time of AALL1731 consent. Participation included both parent/guardian completion of a 75-item survey and child neurocognitive testing at 4-timepoints: baseline (before end-induction), start of maintenance, end of therapy, and 1-year post-therapy. Written surveys were self-completed or read-aloud by site personnel with an interpreter as needed. Families were not remunerated for participation. We report the feasibility of baseline SDOH data collection in a groupwide ALL trial, defined as the proportion of correlative study participants with completed baseline surveys and acceptability defined as the proportion of surveys with evaluable HMH data (the primary exposure of interest). Results : As of 6/30/24, 1487/2040 (73%) eligible participants opted-in to the HMH and Neurocognitive Late Effects aim. Of 1487 correlative study participants,1102 (74%) completed the baseline survey a median of 20 days (Q1-Q3: 10-27) from trial consent across 179 sites. Among completed surveys, 1075 (97.5%) had evaluable HMH data. Sociodemographic characteristics were similar for correlative study participants and non-participants: age (median 5.30 vs 5.45 years), sex (female 46% vs 46%), race/ethnicity (Hispanic 25% vs 23%; Asian 4% vs 7%; Black 7% vs 4%; non-Hispanic White 51% vs 46%; unknown 14% vs 20%), and insurance (Medicaid-only 34% vs 29%). Thirty-three percent of respondents reported HMH exposure at baseline—with housing (24%) and food insecurity (16%) being most common. Primary correlative aim analyses and secondary analyses of SDOH and outcomes are pending mature trial data. Conclusions : Collection of baseline parent-reported SDOH data within a COG ALL correlative study is feasible and acceptable during the first month of induction therapy based on high survey completion and minimal data missingness across 179 sites. One in three children were HMH-exposed at trial entry, highlighting the high prevalence of clinically relevant adverse SDOH in a patient population for whom interventions to improve outcomes may be warranted. Notably, a 74% SDOH survey completion rate is lower than previously reported in COG Neuroblastoma and Dana-Farber ALL Consortium trials (88% and 96%), which collected SDOH survey data as stand-alone correlative aims. A brief (11-item), single-timepoint SDOH survey will be evaluated in future COG trials not linked to other correlative data requirements to minimize family time investment and maximize data collection. Systematic integration of SDOH data collection as an expected component of future trial design will support investigation of mechanisms underlying treatment-failure and late effects of therapy and to identify children at risk of inferior outcomes who may benefit from targeted health equity interventions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,063
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,937
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,333

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0630,078
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,079
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,323 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→Travaux en français237 207→