MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparing late mortality risks among childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

2019· article· en· W2947330567 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda M Fidler-Benaoudia, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Yutaka Yasui, D. Winter, Wendy M. Leisenring, Leslie L. Robison, Raoul C. Reulen, Yan Chen, Gregory T. Armstrong, Mike Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerPediatricsStandardized mortality ratioDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10017 Background: It is unclear whether late-effect risks are comparable across international settings. We compared late mortality risks in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) and British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (BCCSS). Methods: 46,474 5-year survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed from 1970-1999 and < 15 years age were included: 28,248 from the CCSS and 18,226 from the BCCSS. Late mortality (death ≥5 years from diagnosis) was assessed by linking to national vital statistics records. Adjusted ratios of the standardized mortality ratio (RSMR) and cumulative mortality probabilities were used to compare risks between cohorts. Treatment exposures were not available for the BCCSS, precluding comparison. Results: The cumulative all-cause mortality at 10 years from diagnosis was significantly lower in the CCSS (4.8%;95%CI:4.6%-5.0%) compared to the BCCSS (6.9%;95%CI:6.5%-7.2%); this was due to a lower probability of death from recurrence/progression of the primary cancer (CCSS = 3.3% vs. BCCSS = 5.8%), with significant differences observed in survivors of leukemia (7.9% vs 4.0%), Hodgkin lymphoma (2.5% vs 1.3%), CNS tumors (6.4% vs 4.4%), and sarcoma (6.5% vs 4.0%). However, with increasing time from diagnosis, risks became more similar. The CCSS ultimately had a greater cumulative mortality at 40 years from diagnosis, attributable to a 2-fold higher mortality from subsequent neoplasms (SNs) (RSMR:2.0;95%CI:1.8-2.3), cardiac (RSMR:1.7;95%CI:1.4-2.3) and pulmonary (RSMR:1.9;95%CI:1.4-2.5) causes, and other health-related deaths (RSMR:2.4;95%CI:2.1-2.9). When assessed by follow-up interval, the differences between the CCSS and BCCSS increased significantly for deaths due to SNs, cardiac and pulmonary causes, and other health-related deaths as time increased. Among those diagnosed more recently, the gap in all-cause mortality widened, with CCSS survivors diagnosed 1990-1999 experiencing approximately half the excess (RSMR:0.5;95%CI:0.5-0.6) observed in the BCCSS; this widening was driven by declines in the RSMR for most non-recurrence/progression causes of death. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that North American survivors may have received more intensive regimens during this time period to achieve sustainable remission and cure. However, the cost of this approach was a higher risk of death from late-effects. Which approach confers a net survival advantage will depend critically on the magnitude of the excess risk of late-effect deaths as the cohorts age.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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