MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974002237 · doi:10.1089/jayao.2012.0013

The Challenge of Access to Care for Adolescents with Cancer in Italy: National and Local Pediatric Oncology Programs. International Perspectives on AYAO, Part 2

2013· article· en· W1974002237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Ferrari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAssociazione Bianca Garavaglia
KeywordsMedicinePediatric oncologyPediatric cancerFamily medicineCancerPresentation (obstetrics)Quality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEPediatricsNursingInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207