Patterns of physician follow-up among young cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe the frequency and pattern of physician visits in 1998 to 2000 among childhood and adolescent cancer survivors in British Columbia (BC), to compare their use of physician services with use in the general population, and to examine the effects of clinical and sociodemographic factors on care. Design Retrospective, observational, population-based cohort study, with a comparison group. Cohort records from population registries were linked to physician claim data and oncology visit records for 1998 to 2000. Setting Outpatient physician care in BC. Participants All (N = 1157) survivors of cancer diagnosed before age 20 years in BC between 1970 and 1992 who survived at least 5 years after diagnosis, and an age-sex frequency–matched population sample of 11 570 individuals. Main outcome measures Probability of a physician visit and frequency of physician visits. Results Approximately 97% of survivors saw at least 1 physician in the 3-year period, compared with 50% of the general population sample. The probability of a GP visit was 96% higher (adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8 to 2.1), and the likelihood of a specialist visit was 157% higher (adjusted 95% CI 2.4 to 2.8) than for the general population. Survivors were more than twice as likely to see GPs at least 10 times (adjusted relative risk 2.23, 95% CI 2.0 to 2.4) and had 49% more visits than the general population. Cancer diagnosis and treatment affected visit patterns, but socioeconomic status and rural residency did not significantly affect the probability of a visit. Conclusion Demand for physician care among childhood and adolescent cancer survivors is considerably greater than for the general population, and this need persists many years after diagnosis. Physicians need information on the unique health care requirements of this patient group in order to provide appropriate care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".