MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2426668504 · doi:10.3747/co.23.3013

Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer: Principles of Care

2016· article· en· W2426668504 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Raveena Ramphal, Sheila Aubin, Piotr Czaykowski, Sonja De Pauw, Andrea C. Johnson, Sarah McKillop, David Szwajcer, Krista L. Wilkins, Paul Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of FrederictonUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of New BrunswickBC Children's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineContext (archaeology)Young adultTask forceTask (project management)Family medicineGerontologyMedical educationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents and young adults (ayas) with cancer in active treatment face a number of barriers to optimal care. In the present article, we focus on the 3 critical domains of care for ayas-medical, psychosocial, and research-and how changes to the system could overcome barriers. We summarize the current literature, outline recommended principles of care, raise awareness of barriers to optimal care, and suggest specific changes to the system to overcome those barriers in the Canadian context. Many of the recommendations can nevertheless be applied universally. These recommendations are endorsed by the Canadian Task Force on Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and build on outcomes from two international workshops held by that group.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.415
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207