MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027226215 · doi:10.1002/cam4.3138

Treatment patterns and outcomes in adolescents and young adults with Hodgkin lymphoma in pediatric versus adult centers: An IMPACT Cohort Study

2020· article· en· W3027226215 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sumit Gupta, Nancy N. Baxter, David Hodgson, Angela Punnett, Rinku Sutradhar, Jason D. Pole, Chenthila Nagamuthu, Cindy Lau, Paul C. Nathan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreInstitute for Work & HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenPediatric Oncology GroupUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPediatric Oncology Group of OntarioAlex's Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer
KeywordsMedicineYoung adultCohortHodgkin lymphomaPediatricsPopulationPediatric cancerCancerLate effectLymphomaInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a common adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer. While outcome disparities between pediatric vs. adult centers [locus of care (LOC)] have been demonstrated in other AYA cancers such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia, they have not been well studied in HL. We therefore compared population-based treatment patterns and outcomes in AYA HL by LOC. The IMPACT Cohort includes data on all Ontario, Canada AYA (15-21 years) diagnosed with HL between 1992 and 2012. Linkage to population-based health administrative data identified late effects. We examined LOC-based differences in treatment modalities, cumulative doses, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and late effects. Among 954 AYA, 711 (74.5%) received therapy at adult centers. Pediatric center AYA experienced higher rates of radiation therapy but lower cumulative doses of doxorubicin and bleomycin. 10-year EFS did not differ between pediatric vs. adult cancer vs. community centers (83.8% ± 2.4% vs. 82.8% ± 1.6% vs. 82.7%±3.0%; P = .71); LOC was not significantly associated with either EFS or OS in multivariable analyses. Higher incidences of second malignancies in pediatric center AYA and of cardiovascular events in adult center AYA were observed, but were not significant. In conclusion, while pediatric and adult centers used different treatment strategies, outcomes were equivalent. Differences in treatment exposures are however likely to result in different late-effect risks. Protocol choice should be guided by individual late-effect risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207