Longitudinal changes in health care utilization by adult survivors of childhood cancer in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6030 Background: The incidence of late effects increases as childhood cancer survivors age. Survivors require lifelong care focused on the risks arising from prior cancer therapy (survivor-focused care). Methods: We assessed longitudinal changes in health care utilization in adult survivors of childhood cancer participating in the CCSS. Utilization at baseline and most recent follow-up was classified into one of three mutually exclusive hierarchical categories: no health care, general medical care, or survivor-focused care. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for predictors of reduction in care over time from survivor-focused to general or no care. Multivariable models, adjusted for key treatment exposures, were created to assess the risk factors for reductions in level of care over time. Results: Among 8591 eligible survivors, mean age at last follow-up was 35.1 years (SD=7.8) with a mean of 11.6 years (SD=2.2) since baseline. Of 3993 (46%) survivors who reported survivor-focused care at baseline, 2383 (59.7%) reported a lower level of care at follow-up. Among 4598 (54%) not receiving survivor-focused care at baseline, 915 (20%) reported survivor-focused care at follow-up. Baseline predictors of a decreased level of care were no health insurance (RR=1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9), male sex (RR=1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6), being 10-19 years from diagnosis compared with 20+ years (RR=1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7). In contrast, factors associated with a maintenance in survivor-focused care were Canadian residency compared to U.S. residency with insurance (RR=0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9), unemployment (RR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-0.9), physical limitations (RR=0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9), cancer-related pain (RR=0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.8), poor emotional health (RR=0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9), having mild-moderate (RR=0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.6) or severe-disabling chronic health condition (RR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.7). Conclusions: Less than a third of adult survivors of childhood cancer report survivor-focused care. Rates decrease over time. Targeted interventions to maximize survivor-focused care in at-risk survivors should be tested so preventive and risk-reducing opportunities are not lost.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".