MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Risk-based care in survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

2007· article· en· W2246040050 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Nathan, Mark Greenberg, Kirsten K. Ness, Martin C. Mahoney, James G. Gurney, Melissa M. Hudson, Sarah S. Donaldson, Wendy M. Leisenring, Leslie L. Robison, Kevin C. Oeffinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerBreast cancerCohortHealth careRadiation therapyDiseaseLogistic regressionPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6502 Background: Childhood cancer survivors are at significant risk of morbidity as a result of their therapy. Thus, they require regular medical follow-up focused on their specific long-term risks. We examined the frequency and type of care received by a cohort of adult survivors of childhood cancer and examined the predictors of the receipt of appropriate risk-based care. Methods: Eligible subjects were members of the CCSS, a multi-institutional study of patients who have survived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with childhood cancer between 1970 and 1986. Participants completed a baseline survey and a subsequent survey on health care contact within the preceding 2 years. Contact was classified hierarchically as general care, cancer-related care, basic risk-based care and optimal risk-based care. Optimal risk-based care was assessed only in patients whose therapy is associated with a substantial risk of cardiac disease (=300 mg/m2 of an anthracycline, or any anthracycline plus chest radiation) or breast cancer (females who received chest radiation who are =27 years). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess associations between demographic/treatment variables and health care outcomes using logistic regression models. Results: The health care questionnaire was completed by 8,448 survivors. Median age (range) at diagnosis was 6.8 (0–21.0) years and at assessment was 31.4 (17.5–54.1) years. 87% reported general medical contact, 31% cancer- related care and 12% basic risk-based cancer care. Amongst patients at increased risk of cardiac disease (N=1,798) or breast cancer (N=852), only 28% reported receiving an echocardiogram and 49% a mammogram, respectively. Patients without health insurance (odds ratio [OR]=2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.56–3.13, p<0.0001 by Wald statistic), males (OR=1.19, 95% CI=1.03–1.37, p=0.02), younger patients (OR=1.03, 95% CI=1.02–1.04, p<0.0001) and those who perceived their health as good/excellent (OR=1.37, 95% CI=1.13–1.65, p=0.001) were at increased risk of not having received basic risk-based care. Conclusions: Despite a significant risk of late effects after cancer therapy, the majority of adult survivors of childhood cancer do not receive appropriate risk-based health care. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→