Scoping review protocol documenting cancer outcomes and inequalities for adults living with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is increasing attention on the cancer burden for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Emerging evidence suggests there are differences in cancer experiences and outcomes for individuals living with IDD, from risk through survivorship. These differences may be attributed to features of the IDD, such as cognitive deficits and communication, as well as social determinants of health-like lower education levels and ableism. However, there is no comprehensive overview of the literature quantifying these potential disparities and describing the influencing factors. In this paper, we describe a scoping review protocol to systematically review published literature on cancer for adults with IDD. The purpose of this review is to identify differences in cancer risk, stage at diagnosis, treatment and survival along the cancer continuum for adults with IDD and outline potential contributing factors creating these disparities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews to conduct this review. We will systematically search electronic databases for peer-reviewed, published journal articles to identify appropriate studies in collaboration with a health science librarian. Two reviewers will independently review titles and abstracts followed by a full-text review to determine whether it meets inclusion criteria. A data chart for collecting and sorting information will be developed in consultation with the team. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Extracted information will be summarised quantitatively and qualitatively to meet review objectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will employ a methodology to identify literature related to cancer outcomes and experiences for adults with IDD. Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders who care for and support individuals with IDD at local, provincial and national levels and through publishing findings. By highlighting the disparities in the cancer system and gaps in the research, this scoping review can provide direction for future action.
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 | 0.177 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.022 |
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".