MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536314868 · doi:10.1089/jayao.2016.0016

Effect of Population Socioeconomic and Health System Factors on Medical Care of Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

2016· article· en· W2536314868 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deirdre Caplin, Ken R. Smith, Kirsten K. Ness, Heidi A. Hanson, Stephanie M. Smith, Paul C. Nathan, Melissa M. Hudson, Wendy M. Leisenring, Leslie L. Robison, Kevin C. Oeffinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute on AgingAmerican Lebanese Syrian Associated CharitiesNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesChildren's Cancer Research FundSt. Jude Children's Research HospitalUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusOdds ratioPopulationHealth careConfidence intervalDemographyOddsCancer screeningHealth equityLogistic regressionCancerGerontologyPublic healthEnvironmental healthInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the independent contribution of population socioeconomic and health system factors on childhood cancer survivors' medical care and screening. METHODS: 7899 childhood cancer survivors in the United States and Canada enrolled in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS). Population-level factors were derived from U.S. Area Health Resource File or 201 Canadian Census. Health service utilization and individual-level factors were self-reported. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate the effect of population factors on medical care (any care vs. no care; risk-based care vs. general care) and indicated echocardiogram or mammogram, adjusting for individual sociodemographic and health status. RESULTS: After adjusting for individual factors, population factors had a nominal impact on childhood cancer survivors' medical care and screening. Higher population median income was associated with risk-based survivor-focused care versus general care (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.09) among all participants, but not among U.S. residents only (OR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.99-1.07). For U.S. residents, the number of CCSS centers within the geographic area was associated with greater odds of receiving risk-based survivor-focused medical care (OR 1.12, 95% CI, 1.04-1.20). Areas with higher median income had higher rates of echocardiogram screening among survivors at risk of cardiomyopathy (for every $10,000 increase in median income, there is a 12% increase in odds of echocardiogram screening; 95% CI 1.05-1.20). A positive relationship was identified between greater number of physicians and surgeons in the county of residence and recommended echocardiogram (for every additional 1000 physicians and surgeons: OR 1.12, 95% CI, 1.01-1.23). We found no association between population-level factors and mammography screening. CONCLUSIONS: Population socioeconomic disparities moderately affect childhood cancer survivors' risk-based medical care and screening after accounting for individual sociodemographic and health factors.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207