Use of health care services by survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of survivors of childhood cancer in Canada is growing. The large majority of survivors experience at least 1 adverse late effect of their cancer therapy, which often becomes more severe and clinically apparent with time. The extent of survivors' use of health services in Canada is unknown, although coordinated, continuous, long-term follow-up care has been recommended by numerous investigators. METHODS: Information on reported consultations with healthcare practitioners in the past year was obtained from 2152 survivors of child and adolescent cancer (mean age at diagnosis, 7.3; range, 0-19) and 2432 age- and sex-matched population-based controls through a mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: Similar proportions of survivors (71%) and controls (73%) reported consulting a general practitioner in the past year. Survivors were more likely than controls to consult with any specialist (68% vs. 46%), including an oncologist (29% vs. 0.3%). Survivors' consultations with oncologists increased with concurrent physical health problems (adjusted odds ratio [OR(adj)], 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.1), history of high risk therapy (OR(adj), 2.4, 95% CI, 1.9-2.9), and multiple treatment series (OR(adj), 2.2, 95% CI, 1.7- 3.0), but decreased with time since diagnosis (OR(adj), 0.3, 95% CI, 0.2-0.4). CONCLUSION: Although most survivors reported consulting with at least 1 healthcare practitioner in the past year, the large majority did not report consulting an oncologist and thus may not be receiving optimal follow-up care. Moreover, consultations decreased with time since diagnosis, exactly when risk of late effects increases. This limited preventive care could have major implications on survivors' long-term health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".