Nutritional Assessment of Childhood Cancer Survivors (the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study-Nutrition): Protocol for a Multicenter Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk of developing adverse late health effects. Poor nutritional intake may contribute to this risk, but information about dietary intake is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study will assess childhood cancer survivors' dietary intake and compare two dietary assessment tools: a self-reported food frequency questionnaire, and dietary measurements from urine spot samples. METHODS: In a substudy of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (SCCSS), SCCSS-Nutrition, we assessed childhood cancer survivors' dietary intake via a validated food frequency questionnaire. We sent a urine spot collection kit to a subset of 212 childhood cancer survivors from the French-speaking region of Switzerland to analyze urinary sodium, potassium, urea, urate, creatinine, and phosphate content. We will compare the food frequency questionnaire results with the urine spot analyses to quantify childhood cancer survivors' intake of various nutrients. We collected data between March 2016 and March 2018. RESULTS: We contacted 1599 childhood cancer survivors, of whom 919 (57.47%) returned a food frequency questionnaire. We excluded 11 childhood cancer survivors who were pregnant or were breastfeeding, 35 with missing dietary data, and 71 who had unreliable food frequency questionnaire data, resulting in 802 childhood cancer survivors available for food frequency questionnaire analyses. To a subset of 212 childhood cancer survivors in French-speaking Switzerland we sent a urine spot collection kit, and 111 (52.4%) returned a urine sample. We expect to have the results from analyses of these samples in mid-2019. CONCLUSIONS: The SCCSS-Nutrition study has collected in-depth dietary data that will allow us to assess dietary intake and quality and compare two dietary assessment tools. This study will contribute to the knowledge of nutrition among childhood cancer survivors and is a step toward surveillance guidelines and targeted nutritional recommendations for childhood cancer survivors in Switzerland. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03297034; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03297034. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14427.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".