Does age matter? Comparing post‐treatment psychosocial outcomes in young adult and older adult cancer survivors with their cancer‐free peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adolescents and young adult cancer survivors (AYA) are a unique subpopulation with high levels of distress and unmet need. To date, studies have not disentangled distress due to developmental life stage from distress due to cancer survivorship. This population-based study allowed a direct comparison between AYA cancer survivors, older adult (OA) cancer survivors, and their cancer-free peers. METHODS: We combined 4 annual cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS, 2007-2010) to obtain a final sample of 239 316 respondents. We dichotomized the total sample into AYA (15-39 years, n = 83 770) and OA (40+, n = 155 546). Two standardized questions identified cancer survivors (n = 14 592). The self-reported outcomes of interest included self-perceived health and mental health, and health care professional diagnosed mood and anxiety disorders. We used weighted logistic regression models to examine for associations, including an interaction term to assess for effect modification by age. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, cancer survivorship in AYAs was strongly associated with higher prevalence of both mood (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.44-2.77) and anxiety (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.70-2.86) disorders as compared to their cancer-free peers. OA survivors had a weaker association in the same direction (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.21 and OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30, respectively). AYA cancer survivors reported higher levels of poor self-perceived mental health than their cancer-free peers (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.03-2.14), while there was no significant difference from cancer-free peers for OAs (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: AYA cancer survivors experience a significantly higher risk of psychosocial distress than both their cancer-free peers and OA survivors.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".