A cross-Canada survey of clinical programs for the care of survivors of cancer in childhood and adolescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 80% of children who have been recently diagnosed with cancer will survive for five years or more. A majority of these survivors are at risk for developing one or more long-term sequelae of their therapy. Thus, they all require specialized medical care that is focused on their specific risks. METHODS: A survey of informants from all 17 paediatric cancer programs in Canada was conducted to determine the care offered to survivors of childhood cancer, both during their paediatric and adolescent years, as well as after they transition to adulthood. RESULTS: Sixteen informants representing all 17 centres responded to the survey by telephone or e-mail. Twelve of the 17 centres (71%) had a formal program or clinic dedicated to the care of survivors during their paediatric and adolescent years, while the remaining centres cared for survivors in their acute care oncology clinics. However, only six of 17 centres (35%) had access to a formal program for survivors once they reach adulthood. Fifteen of the 17 centres (88%) adhered to published long-term follow-up guidelines, and 13 of 17 centres (76%) provided a treatment summary and/or a survivorship care plan to each survivor before their transfer out of paediatric care. CONCLUSION: Despite the centralization of paediatric oncology care within 17 specialist centres and the availability of universal health care, many Canadian survivors of childhood cancer do not have access to clinics specializing in long-term risk-based survivor care, and this access further decreases once they reach adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".