Osteopenia, physical activity and health‐related quality of life in survivors of brain tumors treated in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteopenia has been reported in children surviving acute lymphoblastic leukemia and brain tumors, apparently as a consequence of therapy. It has been suggested that cranial irradiation may play a role in the development of this complication. In order to explore that possibility, we examined survivors of brain tumors treated with and without radiation in childhood to investigate associations between radiation, osteopenia, physical activity, health status and overall health-related quality of life (HRQL). PROCEDURE: Subjects were survivors of posterior fossa tumors (astrocytoma or medulloblastoma) or optic glioma, < 18 years of age at diagnosis and > 1 year off treatment. Measurements of growth velocity, body composition, bone densitometry, physical activity and HRQL were undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-five (62.5%) of the 40 eligible patients participated in the study. Of the 25 patients, 12 (48%) received radiation therapy (R group) while 13 received no radiation (NR group). Growth hormone (GH) deficiency had been detected in three subjects, one had completed GH therapy while two were still on hormone replacement. The prevalence of osteopenia was 44% in the entire group, and 67% versus 27% in the R and NR groups. Florid osteoporosis was present in 20% of the entire group, more than 40% of the R group but none of the NR group. A significant correlation (P < 0.01) was observed between overall HRQL and Z scores of bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine. Pain and ambulation/mobility utility scores correlated significantly (P < 0.05) with BMD, while levels of physical activity correlated (P < 0.05) with overall HRQL utility scores. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that in survivors of brain tumors treated in childhood, radiation therapy is associated with significant loss of bone mineral. Among these survivors, HRQL is less, pain is more severe and ambulation is more restricted in those with low BMD scores. The reduction in HRQL is reflected in diminished physical activity. A larger multi-center study is needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".