Medical Care in Long-Term Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether childhood cancer survivors receive regular medical care focused on the specific morbidities that can arise from their therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health care use in 8,522 participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a multi-institutional cohort of childhood cancer survivors. We assessed medical visits in the preceding 2 years, whether these visits were related to the prior cancer, whether survivors received advice about how to reduce their long-term risks, and whether screening tests were discussed or ordered. Completion of echocardiograms and mammograms were assessed in patients at high risk for cardiomyopathy or breast cancer. We examined the relationship between demographics, treatment, health status, chronic medical conditions, and health care use. RESULTS: Median age at cancer diagnosis was 6.8 years (range, 0 to 20.9 years) and at interview was 31.4 years (range, 17.5 to 54.1 years). Although 88.8% of survivors reported receiving some form of medical care, only 31.5% reported care that focused on their prior cancer (survivor-focused care), and 17.8% reported survivor-focused care that included advice about risk reduction or discussion or ordering of screening tests. Among survivors who received medical care, those who were black, older at interview, or uninsured were less likely to have received risk-based, survivor-focused care. Among patients at increased risk for cardiomyopathy or breast cancer, 511 (28.2%) of 1,810 and 169 (40.8%) of 414 had undergone a recommended echocardiogram or mammogram, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite a significant risk of late effects after cancer therapy, the majority of childhood cancer survivors do not receive recommended risk-based care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".