MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical, sociodemographic, and behavioral factors associated with cumulative burden of morbidity (CBM) among testicular cancer survivors (TCS) in the Platinum study.

2017· article· en· W2891915117 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah L. Kerns, Chunkit Fung, AnnaLynn M. Williams, Mohammad Issam Abu Zaid, Howard D. Sesso, Patrick O. Monahan, Shirin Ardeshir‐Rouhani‐Fard, Darren R. Feldman, Robert J. Hamilton, David J. Vaughn, Clair J. Beard, Robert Huddart, Jeri Kim, Christian Kollmannsberger, Deepak M. Sahasrabudhe, Ashley Amidon Morlang, Ryan Cook, Sophie D. Fosså, Lawrence H. Einhorn, Lois B. Travis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionInternal medicineConfidence intervalCancerPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10075 Background: TCS are an important group in which to characterize late effects of cancer and its therapy given their young age at diagnosis and high cure rate. We comprehensively evaluated CBM and identified associated clinical, sociodemographic, and behavioral risk factors among TCS given cisplatin based chemotherapy in a multicenter study. Methods: TCS completed a comprehensive health questionnaire. Responses were grouped into 22 adverse health outcomes (AHO) and graded by severity. A CBM score was calculated based on AHO number and severity, following Geenen et al (JAMA 2007). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression examined the association of clinical, sociodemographic, and behavioral factors with CBM. Variable-based hierarchical clustering identified individual AHOs that co-occurred. Results: Among 1,215 TCS (median age at evaluation 38 y, range 19-68 y; time since chemotherapy 4.6 y), over 20% had a CBM score of high (17%), very high (4%) or severe (0.4%). Most TCS, however, had CBM scores of low (37%), medium (28%), very low (9%) or none (5%). In a multivariable model controlling for time since chemotherapy, older attained age (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 1.3), being widowed/divorced/separated (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1 - 3.1), having less than college-level education (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 - 2.2), being retired/on disability (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2 - 5.3), and receipt of 4 cycles of BEP vs. 4 cycles of EP or 3 cycles of BEP (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.01 - 1.8) were associated with increased odds of a worse CBM score; vigorous exercise (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5 - 0.9) and non-white race (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4 - 0.9) were associated with decreased odds. A separate cluster analysis revealed five groups of AHOs: those known to be cisplatin-related (e.g. neuropathy, ototoxicity); metabolic abnormalities (e.g. hypercholesterolemia, diabetes); vascular damage (e.g. stroke); testicular cancer-related (e.g. hypogonadism); and other (e.g. thyroid disease). Conclusions: TCS with factors associated with worse CBM may be candidates for closer monitoring. If confirmed, our cluster analysis showing that groups of conditions tend to co-occur in TCS could provide guidance for survivorship care plans.

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)0.002
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 score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicTesticular diseases and treatments→French-language works237,207→