General Internists’ Preferences and Knowledge About the Care of Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) are at high risk for illness and premature death. Little is known about the physicians who provide their routine medical care. OBJECTIVE: To determine general internists' self-reported attitudes and knowledge about the care of CCSs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Mailed survey delivered between September 2011 and August 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 2000 U.S. general internists. MEASUREMENTS: Care preferences, comfort levels with caring for CCSs (7-point Likert scale: 1 = very uncomfortable, 7 = very comfortable), familiarity with available surveillance guidelines (7-point Likert scale: 1 = very unfamiliar, 7 = very familiar), and concordance with Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines in response to a clinical vignette. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.6% (1110 of 1801). More than half the internists (51.1%) reported caring for at least 1 CCS; 72.0% of these internists never received a treatment summary. On average, internists were "somewhat uncomfortable" caring for survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and osteosarcoma. Internists reported being "somewhat unfamiliar" with available surveillance guidelines. In response to a clinical vignette about a young adult survivor of Hodgkin lymphoma, 90.6% of respondents did not appropriately recommend yearly breast cancer surveillance, 85.1% did not appropriately recommended cardiac surveillance, and 23.6% did not appropriately recommend yearly thyroid surveillance. Access to surveillance guidelines and treatment summaries were identified as the most useful resources for caring for CCSs. LIMITATION: Findings, based on self-report, may not reflect actual clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Although most general internists report involvement in the care of CCSs, many seem unfamiliar with available surveillance guidelines and would prefer to follow patients in collaboration with a cancer center. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".