Long-term outcomes of adult survivors of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past 30 years, changes in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer have led to substantial improvements in survival. Although treatment-related factors have been shown to impact subsequent health status and quality of life, there is limited information on survivors who are now two or more decades after treatment. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) was established as a resource for investigating the long-term outcomes of a cohort of 5-year survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer, diagnosed between 1970-1986. The CCSS cohort has more than 14,000 active participants, including survivors of leukemia, brain tumors, Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms tumor, neuroblastoma, soft-tissue sarcoma, and bone tumors. Study participants, extensively characterized by their cancer therapy, have provided self-reported sociodemographic- and health-related information. Although the survivor population has been found to be at significantly increased risk of several adverse outcomes, such as late mortality, second cancers, pulmonary complications, pregnancy loss, low birth weight of offspring, and decreased education, the overall proportion of survivors affected is relatively small. Subgroups at high risk of adverse outcomes, defined by treatment-related, demographic, or medical factors, can be identified. The ongoing evaluation of large and diverse cohorts of cancer survivors will aid in further identifying individuals who should be the target of innovative intervention strategies.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".