Principles and Recommendations for the Provision of Healthcare in Canada to Adolescent and Young Adult–Aged Cancer Patients and Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer and survivors of cancer in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood are a constituency facing disparities of care affecting quality of life and other outcomes in many parts of the world. In Canada, this situation occurs in a nation with population-based cancer control programs and a government-funded healthcare system. The Canadian Task Force on Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer was established in 2008 with a mission to ensure that AYA-aged Canadians with cancer and AYA survivors of cancer have prompt, equitable access to the best care, and to establish and support research to identify how their health outcomes and quality of life can be optimized. Following a survey of existing services, and in consultation with survivors, healthcare professionals, and policy makers, the Task Force identified principles of care, priority issues for research and the establishment of outcome metrics, and strategies for implementing change that are designed to improve the outcomes and quality of life of this specific cohort of patients and survivors with unique developmental needs. The six broad recommendations highlight the need for age-appropriate psychosocial, survivorship, palliative, and medical care as well as research to redress inequities in the care provided to this group relative to both younger and older cancer patients. Improved care for this group will enable individuals to reach their full potential as productive, functioning members of society, and will provide economic and other societal benefits.
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 | 0.038 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".