MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Racial/ethnic disparities in childhood cancer survival in the United States: Mediation effects of health insurance coverage and area-level social deprivation.

2019· article· en· W2980788967 on OpenAlexaff
Jingxuan Zhao, Xuesong Han, Zhiyuan Zheng, Paul C. Nathan, Amy Shirong Lu, K. Robin Yabroff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioEthnic groupMedicaidHealth equityDemographyMediationCancerGerontologyProportional hazards modelPublic healthHealth careConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

143 Background: Childhood cancer survival varies by race/ethnicity in the United States. This study evaluated the impact of potentially modifiable characteristics - health insurance and area-level social deprivation - on racial/ethnic disparities in childhood cancer survival nationwide. Methods: We identified 65,113 childhood cancer patients aged < 18 years newly diagnosed with any of 10 common cancer types (e.g. central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), Hodgkin lymphoma) from the 2004-2014 National Cancer Database. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare survival probabilities by race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic white (NHW) vs non-Hispanic black (NHB), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic other (NH other)) for each cancer type. We conducted mediation analyses by the mma R package to evaluate the racial/ethnic survival disparities mediated by health insurance (private, Medicaid, and uninsured) and social deprivation index (SDI) quartile. SDI is a composite measure of deprivation based on seven characteristics (e.g. income, education, employment). Results: Compared to NHW, worse survival were observed for NHB (HR (hazard ratio): 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3-1.5), Hispanic (HR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.2), and NH other (HR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3) for all cancer sites combined after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics other than health insurance and SDI. Health insurance explained 20% of the survival disparities and SDI explained 19% of the disparity between NHB vs NHW; health insurance explained 48% of the survival disparities and SDI explained 45% of the disparity between Hispanic vs NHW. For ALL, health insurance significantly explained 15% and 18% of the survival disparities between NHB and Hispanic vs NHW, respectively. SDI significantly explained 19% and 31% of the disparities, respectively. Conclusions: Health insurance and SDI mediated racial/ethnic survival disparities for several childhood cancers. Expanding insurance coverage and improving healthcare access in disadvantaged areas may effectively reduce disparities for these cancer sites.

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)0.008
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207