MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Patient-reported levels of concern in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

2016· article· en· W2889831061 on OpenAlexaff
Todd M. Gibson, Chenghong Li, Gregory T. Armstrong, Deo Kumar Srivastava, Wendy M. Leisenring, Ann C. Mertens, Tara M. Brinkman, Lisa Diller, Paul C. Nathan, Melissa M. Hudson, Leslie L. Robison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskCancerPoisson regressionConfidence intervalDemographyChildhood cancerEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10576 Background: Survivors of childhood cancer are at increased risk for adverse health outcomes. However, it is unclear whether specific concerns expressed by survivors are consistent with actual risks. Methods: We examined levels of concern in 9,196 adult survivors of childhood cancer (mean age 27.1 years) and 3,106 adult siblings. Participants reported their level of concern relative to future health, reproduction, cancer and insurance according to a five point scale. We compared survivors and siblings for extreme concern levels, and referenced published relative risks (RR) from CCSS to contrast concerns with actual risk of related events. We used Poisson regression to identify concern-related factors. Results: The proportion of “Very concerned” survivors ranged from 16.4% for ability to get health insurance to 30.1% for future health (Table). Survivors were more likely than siblings to report being very concerned about future health, reproduction and insurance. The disparities in concern between survivors and siblings for future health and cancer were less than the disparities in actual risk for severe/life-threatening/fatal chronic conditions and subsequent neoplasms, respectively. Radiation treatment was associated with survivors being “very concerned” about future health (RR=1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.1-1.3) and developing a cancer (RR=1.3, CI=1.2-1.4). Conclusions: Childhood cancer survivors were more likely to be very concerned about future health-related issues compared to siblings, but levels of concern were not always commensurate with actual risk. Concern Actual Risk Very Concerned Not at All Concerned RR† Survivor (%) Sibling (%) RR* 95% CI Survivor (%) Sibling (%) RR* 95% CI Future Health 4.9 30.1 22.8 1.2 1.1-1.3 9.0 9.2 1.0 0.9-1.2 Ability to Have Children Female 1.2 23.8 12.3 1.2 1.0-1.5 38.0 53.8 1.1 1.0-1.1 Male 1.8 19.5 8.1 1.6 1.2-2.1 37.4 62.1 0.9 0.8-1.0 Develop a Cancer 8.5 23.7 19.9 1.1 1.0-1.2 16.4 15.7 1.0 0.9-1.1 Ability to Get Health Insurance 1.2 16.4 6.4 2.1 1.8-2.4 34.4 57.3 0.6 0.5-0.7 † CCSS published RR vs. siblings (outcomes: chronic health conditions, having a child, subsequent neoplasm, or being insured). * Adjusted for demographics, income, and current status for related outcome.

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)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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