The Challenge of Access to Care for Adolescents with Cancer in Italy: National and Local Pediatric Oncology Programs. International Perspectives on AYAO, Part 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, summarizing the March 2012 presentation at the second international workshop of the Canadian Task Force on Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer, describes the situation in Italy concerning the inadequate access to optimal cancer services for adolescents, and the need to improve the quality of care for these patients while investing in more research on the diseases that afflict them. National actions to bridge the gap in care and implement specific programs tailored to these patients arose from the pediatric oncology community. These actions include creation of the national Committee on Adolescents of the Associazione Italiana Ematologia Oncologia Pediatrica (AIEOP), founded with the mission of ensuring that Italian adolescents with cancer have prompt, adequate, and equitable access to the best care to optimize their treatment outcome and quality of life. Also developed was the Youth Project of the pediatric oncology unit at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori in Milan, which is currently dedicated to adolescents aged 15-19 years old and may eventually serve young adults up to the age of 25 that are affected by pediatric-type tumors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".