MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287127930 · doi:10.1002/pbc.25714

Assessment of Financial Burden as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology

2015· review· en· W2287127930 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNational Palliative Care Research CenterSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePediatric oncologyStandard of careOncologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineFamily medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family financial hardship has emerged as a burden of pediatric cancer treatment with negative implications for family well-being. As part of an extensive project to create evidence-based standards for the psychosocial care of children with cancer, we performed a literature review of pediatric cancer-associated financial hardship utilizing six databases, and identified 24 publications for incorporation into this review. Financial hardship during childhood cancer was found to affect a significant proportion of the population and to negatively impact family well-being. Existing literature supports a strong recommendation for assessment of financial hardship as a component of comprehensive psychosocial care in pediatric oncology.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.429 · 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