The development of an off-therapy needs questionnaire and protocol for survivors of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to obtain input from the families of survivors of childhood cancer regarding their needs surrounding the "coming off treatment" (COT) period. A questionnaire was developed to record their needs, their wishes, and their satisfaction surrounding this period of time. Closer examination of the time surrounding COT was undertaken in an attempt to enhance this area of service for patients and families in our clinic setting. Establishing a structured protocol is likely to alleviate some of the anxiety that surrounds this time for families and help us to provide better continuity of care. After identifying a cohort of patients and families, the reason for the survey was explained and they were asked to complete the questionnaire before they left the clinic setting. At the completion of the study, 82% of the cohort had been approached, and 100% of this group had completed the survey (n = 41). Less than 50% of participants felt they had had a formal "coming off treatment" review but, of that same group, 89% were satisfied with the process. Participants identified areas of importance and health care professionals who they would like involved in the COT process. After reviewing the responses to the questionnaires, the decision was made to proceed in preparing a COT protocol.
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 | 0.072 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".