The Quid Pro Quo of pediatric versus adult services for older adolescent cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data from the State of Georgia suggest that pediatric cancers have better survival outcomes when treated at pediatric cancer centers that are members of the nation's Children's Oncology Group (COG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: To determine if the more adult types of cancer that occur in adolescents are better treated at centers with adult oncology expertise, the reported data were re-analyzed according to a scale that assessed whether the type of cancer was more likely to have been treated by oncologists with pediatric versus adult cancer experience. RESULTS: The results showed that survival hazard index was linearly correlated in 15- to 19-year-olds with the pediatric versus adult cancer type index (P < 0.0001). All of the five most pediatric type of cancers had a better survival at COG institutions and all of the three tumors with a better survival at non-COG institutions had the highest adult type scores. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that adolescent patients with pediatric types of cancer fare better when their care is conducted or supervised by oncologists who specialize in the care of their type of cancer. The Georgia data are among the first to indicate that the more adult type of cancers are better treated on an adult treatment regimen and/or under the supervision or in conjunction with adult-treating oncologists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".