QOS-22IS A SEPARATE AFTERCARE CLINIC FOR PEDIATRIC CNS TUMOR PATIENTS NECESSARY?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decades more and more patients diagnosed with a CNS tumor in childhood are long term survivors. Multiple publications have shown that long term morbidity is the highest in this disease group. METHODS: From the database of the primary nurse/ case manager data of all patients followed in the neurooncology aftercare clinic were collected. RESULTS: Over the past years around 120 patients with 260 visits were followed in this clinic on a yearly basis. PatienT's age was from 5 to 50 years, visit frequency from 4 times to once a year. The clinic was held once a week in the afternoon with 4 to 6 patients per clinic. At the start of each clinic the most recent imaging was reviewed by the pediatric neuroradiologist and the ongoing problems and clinical findings were discussed. Patients were initially seen by the most relevant discipline (neurosurgery, neurooncology or radiation oncology) and then seen by the whole group. All were also seen by the rehabilitation team (occupational therapy, physiotherapy and dietician) as well as by the social worker and the neuropsychologist. If other consults like ophthalmology or imaging are scheduled for the visit, they are organized for the morning. CONCLUSION: From our experience a separate aftercare clinic for pediatric CNS tumor patients is necessary given the multiple morbidities and issues. Patients and parents appreciate this aftercare model with a multidisciplinary team and multiple appointments in one day to address all their issues.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".