MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Long-term outcomes by race/ethnicity in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) cohort.

2015· article· en· W2598893135 on OpenAlexaff
Smita Bhatia, Qi Liu, Wendy M. Leisenring, Kirsten K. Ness, Todd M. Gibson, Leslie L. Robison, Gregory T. Armstrong, Yutaka Yasui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortRelative riskDemographyPoisson regressionCancerConfidence intervalDyslipidemiaInternal medicineEthnic groupIncidence (geometry)DiseasePopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10070 Background: Racial/ethnic differences in risk for long-term adverse outcomes in childhood cancer survivors are not well established. Methods: Hispanic (H: 750, 5.4%) and African American (AA: 694, 5%) survivors were compared to non-Hispanic whites (NHW: 12,397, 89.6%) for late mortality, subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN), and CTCAE-graded chronic health conditions. Poisson regression models adjusted for demographic/clinical factors were used to calculate relative rate (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: AA and H survivors were younger at diagnosis, and had lower SES. Mortality: No racial/ethnic difference was observed (Table). SMN: Risk did not differ by race/ethnicity (cumulative incidence 30y from diagnosis: NHW: 9.0%, AA: 6.6%, H: 7.0%, p=0.3). However, risk for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) was very low among irradiated AA and H survivors (Table). Chronic Health Conditions (grades 3-5): Compared to NHW, AA were more likely to report cardiac conditions and H endocrine conditions (Table). These differences were attenuated after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF: dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking). Conclusions: By and large, when adjusted for SES and treatment, morbidity/mortality did not differ by race/ethnicity. However, specific morbidities (H: endocrine, AA: cardiac) were more prevalent, and were partially explained by CVRFs. Risk of NMSC was negligible among irradiated AA and H, relative to irradiated NHW. These findings inform targeted intervention opportunities. NHW AA H Late Mortality RR (95% CI)* All-cause Ref 1.0 (0.8 – 1.4) 0.9 (0.7 – 1.2) P = 0.9 P = 0.5 SN 1.3 (0.7–2.2) 0.9 (0.5-1.6) P = 0.4 P = 0.7 Cardiac 1.6 (0.5–4.6) 1.5 (0.7–3.5) P = 0.4 P = 0.3 SMNs RR (95% CI)* 1.3 (0.8-2.0) 1.2 (0.8-1.7) P = 0.2 P = 0.4 NMSC (irradiated cohort) 0.0 (0.0-0.2) 0.3 (0.1-0.8) P < 0.001 P = 0.01 Chronic Health Conditions (grade 3-5) RR (95% CI)* Any 1.1 (0.9-1.4) 1.2 (1.0-1.5) P = 0.5 P = 0.06 Cardiac 1.6 (1.0-2.4) 1.2 (0.8-1.7) P = 0.03 P = 0.5 CardiacΩ 1.4 (0.9-2.1) 1.1 (0.7-1.7) P = 0.1 P = 0.7 Endocrine 1.0 (0.6-1.5) 1.7 (1.2-2.3) P = 0.8 P = 0.001 EndocrineΩ 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 1.4 (1.0-1.9) P = 0.7 P = 0.08 *From Poisson models adjusted for treatment, SES. Ω Further adjusted for CVRF.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→