MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593665389 · doi:10.1002/pbc.26497

Global assessment of cancer incidence and survival in adolescents and young adults

2017· review· en· W2593665389 on OpenAlexaff
Archie Bleyer, Andrea Ferrari, Jeremy Whelan, Ronald D. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialIncidence (geometry)CancerYoung adultQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseBurden of diseaseGlobal healthGerontologyPediatricsDemographyPublic healthInternal medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In high-income countries, cancer remains the commonest cause of disease-related death in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) despite survival improvements. With more than 1,000,000 new diagnoses of cancer in AYAs annually worldwide, and their number of life-years affected by cancer being greatest of all ages, the global burden of cancer in AYAs exceeds that in all other ages. In low- and middle-income countries, where the great majority of the world's 3 billion AYAs reside, the needs of those with cancer have been identified and demand attention. Unique to the age group but universal, the psychosocial challenges they face are the utmost across life's spectrum. This lead-off article of a new series in Pediatric Blood and Cancer on AYA oncology attempts to assess the global status of this emerging discipline. The review includes the changing incidence and survival of the common cancers in AYAs-there is no other age group with a similar array of malignancies-and the specific challenges to quality and quantity of life that compromise their lives.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations115
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207