Perceptions of future health and cancer risk in adult survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survivors of childhood cancer are at significant risk for serious chronic health conditions and subsequent cancers because of their prior treatment exposures. However, little is known about survivors' perceptions of their future health risks. METHODS: This study examined self-reported levels of concern about future health and subsequent cancer in 15,620 adult survivors of childhood cancer (median age, 26 years; median time since diagnosis, 17 years) and 3991 siblings in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. The prevalence of concerns was compared between survivors and siblings, and the impact of participant characteristics and treatment exposures on concerns was examined with multivariable modified Poisson regression to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A substantial proportion of survivors were not concerned about their future health (31%) or developing cancer (40%). The prevalence of concern in survivors was modestly higher (RR for future health, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.15) or similar (RR for subsequent cancer, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.05) in comparison with siblings. Survivors exposed to high doses of radiation (≥20 Gy) were more likely to report concern (RR for future health, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.16; RR for subsequent cancer, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.18), but 35% of these high-risk survivors were not concerned about developing cancer, and 24% were not concerned about their future health. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial subgroup of survivors were unconcerned about their future health and subsequent cancer risks, even after exposure to treatments associated with increased risk. These survivors may be less likely to engage in beneficial screening and risk-reduction activities. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".