Identifying Predictors of Longitudinal Decline in the Level of Medical Care Received by Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Characterize longitudinal changes in the use of medical care in adult survivors of childhood cancer. DATA SOURCES: The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a retrospective cohort study of 5+ year survivors of childhood cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Medical care was assessed at entry into the cohort (baseline) and at most recent questionnaire completion. Care at each time point was classified as no care, general care, or survivor-focused care. DATA COLLECTION: There were 6,176 eligible survivors. Multivariable models evaluated risk factors for reporting survivor-focused care or general medical care at baseline and no care at follow-up; and survivor-focused care at baseline and general care at follow-up. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Males (RR, 2.3; 95 percent CI 1.8-2.9), earning <$20,000/year (RR, 1.6; 95 percent CI 1.2-2.3) or ≤ high school education (RR, 2.5; 95 percent CI 1.6-3.8 and RR 2.0; 95 percent CI 1.5-2.7 for <high school and high school, respectively) were associated with no care at follow-up. Survivors with severe or life-threatening conditions at baseline (RR 0.5; 95 percent CI 0.3-0.6) were less likely to report no care at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While the incidence of late effects increases over time for survivors, the likelihood of receiving survivor-focused care decreases for vulnerable populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it