Cognitive Risk in Survivors of Pediatric Brain Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article Tools REVIEW ARTICLES Neurocognitive Outcomes in Survivors of Pediatric Cancer Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.02338 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 22, 2021 PMID: 33886348 Cognitive Risk in Survivors of Pediatric Brain Tumors Ade Oyefiade , MA1,2xAde OyefiadeSearch for articles by this author; Iris Paltin, PhD3,4xIris PaltinSearch for articles by this author; Cinzia R. De Luca, PhD5,6xCinzia R. De LucaSearch for articles by this author; Kristina K. Hardy , PhD7,8xKristina K. HardySearch for articles by this author; David R. Grosshans, MD, PhD9xDavid R. GrosshansSearch for articles by this author; Murali Chintagumpala, MD10,11xMurali ChintagumpalaSearch for articles by this author; Donald J. Mabbott, PhD1,2xDonald J. MabbottSearch for articles by this author; and Lisa S. Kahalley , PhD10,11,12xLisa S. KahalleySearch for articles by this author Show More 1Program in Neurosciences and Mental Health, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada2Department of Psychology, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada3The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA4University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA5Children's Cancer Centre, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia6Clinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia7Neuropsychology Division, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC8Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC9Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX10Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX11Texas Children's Cancer Center, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX12Psychology Service, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02338 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2021 by American Society of Clinical OncologyCONTEXTKey ObjectiveWhat is the cognitive risk experienced by pediatric brain tumor (PBT) survivors based on established and emerging evidence?Knowledge GeneratedInnovative approaches to therapy that reduce treatment burden have improved cognitive outcomes for specific groups of PBT survivors.Historically, studies have failed to examine other important determinants of cognitive development and functional outcomes (eg, patient and environmental characteristics) beyond disease and treatment and have focused too narrowly on global intellectual functioning, neglecting other outcomes highly associated with survivorship quality (eg, social functioning).RelevanceWhen research informs a more comprehensive model of cognitive risk, we will more accurately predict the range of cognitive and functional outcomes that an individual patient is likely to experience based on disease, treatment, patient, and environmental characteristics, allowing clinical teams to take a more targeted approach toward engaging supports and allocating resources for patients with PBT and survivors.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Ade Oyefiade, Iris Paltin, Cinzia R. De Luca, Kristina K. Hardy, Donald J. Mabbott, Lisa S. KahalleyFinancial support: Donald J. MabbottAdministrative support: Donald J. MabbottProvision of study materials or patients: Ade Oyefiade, Donald J. Mabbott, Lisa S. KahalleyCollection and assembly of data: Ade Oyefiade, Cinzia R. De Luca, Iris Paltin, Kristina K. Hardy, Donald J. Mabbott, Lisa S. KahalleyData analysis and interpretation: All authorsManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTCognitive Risk in Survivors of Pediatric Brain TumorsThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Kristina K. HardyEmployment: BayerHonoraria: BayerSpeakers' Bureau: BayerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BayerNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".