Guidelines for Identification of, Advocacy for, and Intervention in Neurocognitive Problems in Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With modern therapies and supportive care, survival of childhood cancer has increased considerably. Patients who have survived cancers involving the central nervous system or who have received therapy toxic to the developing brain are at risk of long-term neurocognitive sequelae. Negative outcomes are observed most frequently in survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and brain tumors. The Children's Oncology Group Long-term Follow-up Guidelines Task Force on Neurocognitive/Behavioral Complications After Childhood Cancer has generated risk-based, exposure-related guidelines designed to direct the follow-up care of survivors of pediatric malignancies based on a comprehensive literature review and expert opinion. This article expands on these guidelines by reviewing the risk factors for the development of neurocognitive sequelae and describing the expected pattern of these disabilities. We herein present recommendations for the screening and management of neurocognitive late effects and outline important areas of school and legal advocacy for survivors with disabilities. Finally, we list resources that can guide patients, their parents, and their medical caregivers as they face the long-term neurocognitive consequences of cancer therapy.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it