MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2566134917 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.877.877

Cognitive, Behavior and Academic Problems in Adolescent Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

2015· article· en· W2566134917 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Jacola, Kim Edelstein, Wei Liu, Ching‐Hon Pui, Robert J. Hayashi, Nina S. Kadan‐Lottick, Deo Kumar Srivastava, Tara O. Henderson, Leslie L. Robison, Gregory T. Armstrong, Kevin R. Krull

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveMedicineCognitionSiblingPediatricsCohortQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Over the past 30 years, survival rates for childhood ALL have improved and neurotoxicity has been reduced by largely replacing cranial radiation therapy (CRT) with additional systemic and intrathecal therapy. However, survivors treated without CRT may still be at risk for long-term neurocognitive deficits and reduced quality of life. Neurobehavioral problems during adolescence are particularly problematic as increased environmental demands for self-direction and higher order cognition are expected. As existing studies of cognition and behavior in adolescent survivors are limited by small samples, single-site data collection, and short follow-up intervals, we examined the prevalence of and risk factors for cognitive, behavior, and academic problems in adolescent survivors of childhood ALL using the Childhood Cancer Survivors Study (CCSS) cohort. Methods: Caregiver report data were analyzed for 1426 5+ year survivors of childhood ALL who were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999 and between 12 to 17 years of age at follow-up, and 609 sibling controls. Cognitive and behavior problems were measured with the Behavior Problem Inventory (BPI). Academic problems were defined as special education placement (yes/no). Chi-Square tests were used to compare the frequency of elevated BPI scores (≥90th percentile) and special education placement in survivors versus siblings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between CRT and chemotherapy doses (Table 1) and cognitive, behavior, and academic problems, adjusting for sex and age at diagnosis (<5 years, ≥5 years). In a subset of 736 survivors for whom longitudinal data were available, associations were examined between cognitive/behavior problems and special education placement during adolescence and self-reported educational attainment as adults (mean [range] age = 28.0 [25.0-37.3]). Results: Compared to siblings, survivors were more likely to have elevated symptoms of anxiety-depression, inattention-hyperactivity, headstrong behavior, and social withdrawal, as well as higher rates of special education placement (Table 2). Relative to no CRT, treatment that included CRT at a dose of <20 Gy increased the risk for anxiety-depression (OR=1.69, [95%CI, 1.25-2.30]), inattention-hyperactivity (OR=1.25, [1.16, 2.00]), and social withdrawal (OR=1.98, [1.51, 2.61]). Moreover, risk of special education placement was increased for survivors treated with <20 Gy CRT (OR=1.89, [1.47, 2.45]) and ≥20 Gy (OR=2.45, [1.93-3.91]). Among survivors treated without CRT, cumulative doses of intrathecal or intravenous methotrexate (MTX) were not associated with risk for cognitive, behavior, or learning problems. Survivors with cognitive or behavior problems, and those who participate in special education during adolescence were less likely to graduate from college as adults (Table 2*). Conclusion: Adolescent survivors of childhood ALL, especially those treated with CRT, are at significantly increased risk for cognitive, behavior, and academic problems that adversely impact adult outcomes. Participation in special education did not remediate this risk, as survivors receiving services were less likely to graduate college as adults. Interventions designed to improve adolescent neurobehavioral functioning should be prioritized. Table 1. % Mean ± SD Age at diagnosis < 5 years 79 3.74±1.82 ≥ 5 years 21 Sex - Male 54 Seizures or strokes after diagnosis - Yes 7 CRT None 50 <20 Gy 31 ≥ 20 Gy 12 IT MTX <230 mg 44 ≥ 230 mg 56 IV MTX None 55 <4.3 g/m2 21 ≥ 4.3 g/m2 24 Cytarabine None 29 Yes 71 Anthracyclines None 48 < 300 mg/m2 39 ≥ 300 mg/m2 13 Alkylating agents None 41 Yes 59 5716.26 ± 5424.92 Dexamethasone None 26 Yes 74 Table 2. Survivors College Graduation* Siblings p OR 95% CI Cognitive and behavior problems Antisocial 14% 11% 0.0800 2.28 1.34, 3.90 Anxiety-Depression 17% 11% 0.0003 1.55 1.02, 2.35 Headstrong 22% 14% 0.0002 1.52 1.03, 2.23 Inattention - Hyperactivity 24% 14% <0.0001 3.04 2.04, 4.54 Social Withdrawal 25% 12% <0.0001 1.31 0.92, 1.88 Academic Problems Special Education - Yes 34% 14% <0.0001 4.29 2.95, 6.22 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→