Clinical considerations for the treatment of secondary differentiated thyroid carcinoma in childhood cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) has increased rapidly over the past several years. Thus far, the only conclusively established risk factor for developing DTC is exposure to ionizing radiation, especially when the exposure occurs in childhood. Since the number of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) is increasing due to improvements in treatment and supportive care, the number of patients who will develop DTC after surviving childhood cancer (secondary thyroid cancer) is also expected to rise. Currently, there are no recommendations for management of thyroid cancer specifically for patients who develop DTC as a consequence of cancer therapy during childhood. Since complications or late effects from prior cancer treatment may elevate the risk of toxicity from DTC therapy, the medical history of CCS should be considered carefully in choosing DTC treatment. In this paper, we emphasize how the occurrence and treatment of the initial childhood malignancy affects the medical and psychosocial factors that will play a role in the diagnosis and treatment of a secondary DTC. We present considerations for clinicians to use in the management of patients with secondary DTC, based on the available evidence combined with experience-based opinions of the authors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".