MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978230753 · doi:10.1002/pbc.21355

Difficult beginnings—Cancer in infancy

2007· editorial· en· W1978230753 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald D. Barr, Marianna P. Silva, Mark Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2007
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster Children's HospitalQueen's UniversityKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinoblastomaNeuroblastomaIncidence (geometry)Blood cancerCancerPediatricsPediatric cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of cancer in the first year of life, reported in the United States at greater than 230 per million 1, is more than 50% higher than in childhood (0–14 years of age) as a whole 2. Caution has been advised, for numerous reasons, in interpreting successive incidence rates that indicate a recent rise in frequency 1. The distribution of diseases in infancy by incidence differs substantially from that in later childhood; the commonest cancers in infants in the United States (in descending rank order) being neuroblastoma, leukemias, brain tumors and retinoblastoma. It should be recognized that there are notable differences in the racial distribution of these diseases. In the United States for example, neuroblastoma occurs more frequently in whites than in blacks. Moreover, such disparities are described in other parts of the world, as in the lower rank order of neuroblastoma in Taiwan 3. Within developing countries other distributions have been reported, such as the top ranking of retinoblastoma in some areas of India and Pakistan 4. Furthermore, there are also important differences in the biologic characteristics of individual cancers in infants by comparison with older children, as exemplified by the clinical and molecular phenotypes of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia 5. In this symposium the topics of neuroblastoma, leukemias, brain tumors and retinoblastoma were addressed respectively by Dr. Robert Castleberry, Dr. Johann Hitzler and Dr. Lewis Silverman, Dr. Eric Bouffet and Dr. Brenda Gallie. The management of chemotherapy in the very young can be particularly challenging as emphasized by Dr. Gideon Koren. Supportive care of infants with cancer poses additional problems. The issues of nutrition, pain and immunization were discussed by Dr. Paul Pencharz with Mary Barron, Dr. Bonnie Stevens and Dr. Upton Allen, respectively. While the survival prospects overall for children with cancer in the first year of life are poor by comparison with those of older children, one notable exception is that of neuroblastoma 1. But what of other outcome measures? Very little information exists on the health status and health-related quality of life in survivors of cancer in infancy. Given the developmental status of these children and the intensity of therapy to which they are commonly exposed, it is likely that the burden of morbidity in survivors will be high. In addition, the journey from diagnosis through the treatment experience to survivorship can have major adverse effects on families, as described by Dr. Anne Kazak. The occurrence of cancer early in life has provided remarkable insights to the pathogenesis of malignant disease, likely linked to antenatal etiologies as exemplified by tumor suppressor genes 6. The hardship experienced by infants with cancer and their families may be offset somewhat if clinical and laboratory-based investigators take advantage of the learning opportunities provided by these disorders to devise more effective interventions with better therapeutic outcomes based on enhanced understanding of cancers in the very young.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207