A GLOBAL COLLABORATION OF CHILDRENʼS COHORTS TO STUDY CHILDHOOD CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISEE-449 Abstract: The causes of specific childhood cancers have been traditionally studied in case-control studies because childhood cancer is rare and cohort studies need to be very large to have adequate power. For example, to test hypotheses relating to a possible adverse exposure for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia involving 20% of children, a cohort of 163,521 would need to be followed through childhood to detect a relative risk of 2.0. However, case-control studies have so far yielded less than expected. This is possibly because exposure assessment questions in retrospective case-control studies of childhood cancer provide information of questionable validity. A new strategy to overcome this problem was proposed in 2004. It involves forming a collaboration to allow the pooling of data from existing international birth cohort studies to make it feasible to investigate risk factors of possible importance. The following large cohort studies have already indicated an interest in participating: the US National Children's Study (n=100,000); the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (n=100,000); the Danish National Birth Cohort (n=100,000); ALSPAC, Bristol (n=14,000); the French (n=20,000) and Canadian children's cohorts (n=30,000), and the Tasmanian Infant Health Survey (TIHS) (n=10,000). Most of these studies have commenced data collection only recently or are about to start, while data collection for the ALSPAC and TIHS took place principally in the 1990s. The approach is feasible as demonstrated by the success of collaborative projects to investigate risk factors for adult cancer and other health outcomes using pooled cohort data. It is likely that data will be ultimately available on a pooled data set approaching 500,000 children. Key exposures to be investigated in this collaborative cohort study include: pesticide and other chemical exposures, of the mother and father pre-conceptionally, and mother during pregnancy, and of the child after birth; infections of the mother during pregnancy and the child after birth; foetal development; maternal nutrition, and chromosomal translocations and genetic polymorphisms. The availability of data relating to these hypotheses will be discussed.
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 | 0.056 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".