MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3041690488 · doi:10.2196/18898

Aftercare of Childhood Cancer Survivors in Switzerland: Protocol for a Prospective Multicenter Observational Study

2020· article· en· W3041690488 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sibylle Denzler, Maria Otth, Katrin Scheinemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersSwiss Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyFamily medicineYoung adultAdult carePediatric cancerChildhood cancerHealth careCancerPediatricsGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer become long-term survivors. For most of them, regular follow-up examinations to detect and treat late effects are necessary, especially in adulthood. The transition from pediatric to adult-focused follow-up care is a critical moment for childhood cancer survivors (CCSs); a substantial proportion of CCSs are lost to follow-up in this transition process and do not attend follow-up care in adulthood. This can have serious effects on survivors' health if late effects are not discovered in a timely fashion. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we primarily assess the current follow-up situation, related needs, and knowledge of adolescent and young adult CCSs who have transitioned from pediatric to adult-focused follow-up care. As secondary objectives, we evaluate transition readiness, identify facilitating factors of transition and adherence to long-term follow-up (LTFU) care, and compare three different transition models. METHODS: The Aftercare of Childhood Cancer Survivors (ACCS) Switzerland study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study that was approved by the ethics committee in February 2019. We are recruiting CCSs from three pediatric oncology centers and using questionnaires to answer the study questions. RESULTS: To date, we have recruited 58 participants. The study is ongoing, and recruitment of participants will continue until January 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The ACCS study will provide information on CCSs' preferences and expectations for follow-up care and their transition into the adult setting. The results will help improve the LTFU care and cancer knowledge of CCSs and subsequently enhance adherence to follow-up care and reduce loss to follow-up in adulthood. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04284189; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04284189?id=NCT04284189. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/18898.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.474
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.123 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→