MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089914004 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa151

A Comparison of Late Mortality Among Survivors of Childhood Cancer in the United States and United Kingdom

2020· article· en· W3089914004 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda M Fidler-Benaoudia, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Yutaka Yasui, Leslie L. Robison, D. Winter, Raoul C. Reulen, Wendy M. Leisenring, Yan Chen, Gregory T. Armstrong, Michael M. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Cancer InstituteBrain Tumour CharityCHILDREN with CANCER UK
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalStandardized mortality ratioCancerDemographyPediatricsChildhood cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether late-effect risks among childhood cancer survivors vary internationally. We compared late mortality in the North American Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) and British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (BCCSS). METHODS: Late mortality was assessed among 49 822 5-year survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed before 15 years of age from 1970 to 1999 (CCSS, n = 31 596; BCCSS, n = 18 226) using cumulative mortality probabilities (CM%) and adjusted ratios of the standardized mortality ratio. RESULTS: The all-cause CM% at 10 years from diagnosis was statistically significantly lower in the CCSS (4.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5% to 5.0%) compared with the BCCSS (6.9%, 95% CI = 6.5% to 7.2%), attributable to a lower probability of death from recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, with statistically significant differences observed in survivors of leukemia, lymphoma, central nervous system tumors, and sarcoma. However, at 40 years from diagnosis, the CCSS had a greater CM% (22.3% vs 19.3%), attributable to a twofold higher risk of mortality from subsequent malignant neoplasms, cardiac and respiratory diseases, and other health-related causes. Differences increased when assessed by follow-up interval, with the CCSS faring worse as time-since-diagnosis increased. Finally, the gap in all-cause mortality widened more recently, with CCSS survivors diagnosed in 1990-1999 experiencing one-half the excess deaths observed in the BCCSS (ratios of the standardized mortality ratio = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.5 to 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that US survivors may have received more intensive regimens to achieve sustainable remission and cure, but the cost of this approach was a higher risk of death from late effects. Although the clinical impact of these differences is unclear, our results provide important evidence to aid the discussion of late effects management.

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)0.003
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207