MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080398436 · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.07.004

Child development at 6 years after maternal cancer diagnosis and treatment during pregnancy

2020· article· en· W3080398436 on OpenAlexaff
Tineke Vandenbroucke, Magali Verheecke, Mathilde van Gerwen, Kristel Van Calsteren, M Halaška, Monica Fumagalli, Robert Fruscio, Amarendra Gandhi, Margreet A. Veening, Lieven Lagae, Petronella B. Ottevanger, Jens‐Uwe Voigt, J. de Haan, Mina Mhallem Gzirí, Charlotte Maggen, Luc Mertens, Gunnar Naulaers, Laurence Claes, Frédéric Amant, Jeroen Blommaert, Jana Dekrem, Frédéric Goffin, Vincent Rigo, Camilla Fontana, Fabio Mosca, Sofia Passera, Odoardo Picciolini, Giovanna Scarfone, Fedro A. Peccatori, Maria Lucia Boffi, Martina Delle Marchette, Renata Nacinovich, Christianne Lok, Vera Wolters, Ingrid Boere, Els O. Witteveen, Carolina P. Schröder, Christianne J.M. de Groot, Martine van Grotel, Marry van den Heuvel‐Eibrink, A.A. Babkova, Vít Drochýtek

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeKom op tegen KankerVlaamse regeringEuropean CommissionStichting Tegen KankerHorizon 2020KWF KankerbestrijdingUniverzita Karlova v Praze
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineObstetricsCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Data on the long-term effects of prenatal exposure to maternal cancer and its treatment on child development are scarce. METHODS: In a multicenter cohort study, the neurologic and cardiac outcomes of 6-year-old children born to women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy were compared with the outcome of children born after an uncomplicated pregnancy. Assessment included clinical evaluation, comprehensive neuropsychological testing, electrocardiography and echocardiography. RESULTS: In total, 132 study children and 132 controls were included. In the study group, 97 children (73.5%) were prenatally exposed to chemotherapy (alone or in combination with other treatments), 14 (10.6%) to radiotherapy (alone or in combination), 1 (0.8%) to trastuzumab, 12 (9.1%) to surgery alone and 16 (12.1%) to no treatment. Although within normal ranges, statistically significant differences were found in mean verbal IQ and visuospatial long-term memory, with lower scores in the study versus control group (98.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.5-101.8, versus 104.4, 95% CI: 100.4-108.4, P = 0.001, Q < 0.001 [Q refers to the false discovery rate adjusted P value], and 3.9, 95% CI: 3.6-4.3, versus 4.5, 95% CI: 4.1-4.9, P = 0.005, Q = 0.045, respectively). A significant difference in diastolic blood pressure was found, with higher values in chemotherapy-exposed (61.1, 95% CI: 59.0 to 63.2) versus control children (56.0, 95% CI 54.1 to 57.8) (P < 0.001, Q < 0.001) and in a subgroup of 59 anthracycline-exposed (61.8, 95% CI: 59.3 to 64.4) versus control children (55.9, 95% CI: 53.6 to 58.1) (P < 0.001, Q = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Children prenatally exposed to maternal cancer and its treatment are at risk for lower verbal IQ and visuospatial long-term memory scores and for higher diastolic blood pressure, but other cognitive functions and cardiac outcomes were normal at the age of 6 years. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00330447.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations61
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of CancerSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207