Quality of Life Among Long-Term Adolescent and Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed effects of childhood or adolescent cancer on quality of life among adolescent and adult cancer survivors, a group who are thought to be at particular risk for adverse late effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 1,334 survivors and 1,477 age- and sex-matched, general population controls from across Canada using a mailed questionnaire which included the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and measures of self-esteem, optimism, and life satisfaction. General linear models and logistic regression were used. Survivor-control differences corresponding to an effect size (ES) > or = 0.5 were considered clinically important. RESULTS: Participants were age 15 years to 37 years. Most survivors (83.8%) were diagnosed > or = 10 years earlier. Fewer survivors (62.1%) than controls (71.1%) reported very good or excellent general health (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.7). However, quality of life differences between survivors and controls were small, and for the most part probably not clinically important. Three clinical characteristics-having had CNS or bone cancer, more than one treatment series, and > or = two organs with a dysfunction at treatment end-were independently associated with poorer quality of life in the physical dimensions. Only survivors with > or = two organs with dysfunction (8.7%) reported poorer quality of life in both physical and psychosocial domains, with several clinically important ES. The largest ES for the SF-36 physical summary scores were found in the 8% of survivors with two or three of these characteristics simultaneously, compared with those survivors who had none (-0.79 and -1.13, respectively). CONCLUSION: Overall, a sizeable majority of adolescent and adult long-term survivors of childhood cancer in Canada appear to have adapted well.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".