MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098168429 · doi:10.3928/15394492-20090611-04

Late Effects of Childhood Cancer, Participation, and Quality of Life of Adolescents

2008· article· en· W2098168429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine Berg, Peggy Strecker Neufeld, Jeanne Harvey, Amy Downes, Robert J. Hayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Occupational therapyDepression (economics)Childhood cancerPsychologyClinical psychologyActivities of daily livingGerontologyMedicineCancerPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the late effects of childhood cancer on participation and quality of life. Ninety-two percent of survivors (9 to 18 years of age) reported living with late effects of lower extremity pain and numbness, memory and attention deficits, and fatigue, depression, or both. Semistructured interviews with 25 survivors using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and the Adolescent Activity Card Sort captured frequencies, interests, and barriers for a range of activities. Survivors reported diminished engagement in vigorous leisure activities, chores, and community activities. Lower engagement in social activities was correlated with lower quality of life scores, as measured by the Pediatric Cancer Quality of Life Inventory-32. Despite these findings of significant cognitive and physical problems, none of the 25 survivors had individualized education programs in school, nor were any receiving occupational therapy at the time the survey was completed. The findings emphasize the importance of advocacy for occupational therapy services for survivors of childhood cancer and examination of adolescent survivor participation in, and goals for, typical activities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of ResearchSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207