MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097756369 · doi:10.1093/jncics/pkaa099

Young Adult Cancer Survivorship: Recommendations for Patient Follow-up, Exercise Therapy, and Research

2020· review· en· W3097756369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott C. Adams, J Herman, Iliana C. Lega, Laura E. Mitchell, David Hodgson, Kim Edelstein, Lois B. Travis, Catherine M. Sabiston, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Abha A. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Cancer Spectrum · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveMedicineAttendanceCancer survivorshipCancer survivorYoung adultMultidisciplinary approachFamily medicineGerontologyCancerMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers (AYAs) often live 50 to 60 years beyond their diagnosis. This rapidly growing cohort is at increased risk for cancer- and treatment-related 'late effects' that persist for decades into survivorship. Recognition of similar issues in pediatric cancer survivors has prompted the development of evidence-based guidelines for late effects screening and care. However, corresponding evidence-based guidelines for AYAs have not been developed. We hosted an AYA survivorship symposium for a large group of multidisciplinary AYA stakeholders (approximately 200 were in attendance) at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) to begin addressing this disparity. The following overview briefly summarizes and discusses the symposium's stakeholder-identified high-priority targets for late effects screening and care and highlights knowledge gaps to direct future research in the field of AYA survivorship. This overview, although not exhaustive, is intended to stimulate clinicians to consider these high-priority screening and care targets when seeing survivors in clinical settings and, ultimately, to support the development of evidence-based late effects screening and care guidelines for AYAs.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Cancer SpectrumSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207