MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2883023353 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2018.252

01 Adolescent and Young Adult Central Nervous System Tumour Survivors: Documentation of late-effects risks and screening recommendations in British Columbia, Canada

2018· article· en· W2883023353 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
A. Fuchsia Howard, Jordan Tran, Avril Ullett, Michael McKenzie, Karen Goddard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMedicineMedical recordRadiation therapyYoung adultPrimary carePediatricsFamily medicineSurgeryGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms are at risk for late effects (LE) - treatment-related health problems occurring more than 5 years after therapy). Since, in Canada, AYA survivors are usually followed in the community, information must be conveyed to primary care providers to guide risk-based follow-up care. Objective: To assess documentation of LE risks and screening recommendations (SR) in medical records of AYA CNS tumor survivors treated with radiation therapy. Methods: The medical records of all patients diagnosed with a CNS neoplasm (benign or malignant) at ages 15-39 years, treated between 1985 and 2010 in the province of British Columbia, surviving >5 years and discharged to the community were assessed. Documentation of LE and SR were extracted, and analyzed descriptively. Results: Among 132 survivors (52% female), treated with radiation therapy (95% partial brain, 10% craniospinal, 8% partial spine, and 4% whole brain) and chemotherapy (17%), 19% of charts included no documentation of LE risks, 26% included only non-specific documentation, and 55% had minimal documentation (1 or 2 LE). Documentation of at least one specific LE increased from 24% in 1980-1989, to 54% in 1990-1999, to 86% in 2000 – 2010. Based on treatment information, all survivors were at high-risk for LE, such as radiation induced neoplasm, meningioma and cerebrovascular events. Yet, SR were documented in only 25% of charts. Conclusions: The documentation of LE risks and screening recommendations has been limited, highlighting the need to improve written communication with primary care providers.

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)0.005
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→