Health-Related Quality of Life Among Child and Adolescent Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main objective was to compare parent-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) of child and adolescent survivors of childhood cancer to that of controls who had no history of cancer. METHODS: We assessed HRQL of 800 child and adolescent survivors younger than 16 years and 923 randomly selected, age- and sex-matched controls from the general population in a national multicenter retrospective cohort study using the Child Health Questionnaire parent report. Participation was 69% among survivors and 57% among controls. RESULTS: Survivors had means that were consistently lower than controls on the HRQL physical summary (PH; 49.9 v 55.3; P <.005), psychosocial summary (PS; 49.4 v 52.6; P < .005), and all but one of the eight subscale scores. Clinically important survivor-control differences in means on PH were found for survivors of CNS tumors, bone tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and Wilms' tumor (differences: -8.7, -7.0, -6.3, -5.4, -4.4, -3.8/100, respectively); on PS, survivors of CNS tumors were most compromised (-6.1/100). Survivor-control differences in both PH and PS were also large for survivors treated with radiation only (-5.8 and -11.9/100, respectively), or radiation combined with surgery (-6.6 and -5.9/100, respectively), or radiation combined with both surgery and chemotherapy (-7.8 and -5.1/100, respectively). Cranial radiation was associated with the most compromised HRQL. CONCLUSION: According to parents, HRQL for survivors was somewhat poorer, overall, than for controls. Survivors of CNS tumors, lymphoma, and leukemia and those patients treated with cranial radiation were reported to have poorest HRQL. These findings support development of guidelines for levels of follow-up care for particular groups of survivors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".