Cognitive Impairment and Family Functioning of Survivors of Pediatric Cancer: A Systematic Review
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.20.02516 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 22, 2021 PMID: 33886349 Cognitive Impairment and Family Functioning of Survivors of Pediatric Cancer: A Systematic Review Sasja A. Schepers , PhD1xSasja A. SchepersSearch for articles by this author; Fiona S. M. Schulte , PhD2xFiona S. M. SchulteSearch for articles by this author; Sunita K. Patel , PhD3xSunita K. PatelSearch for articles by this author; and Kathryn Vannatta, PhD4,5xKathryn VannattaSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Department of Psycho-Oncology Research and Care, Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands2Division of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada3Departments of Population Sciences and Supportive Care Medicine, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA4Center for Biobehavioral Health, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH5Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02516 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables Supplements © 2021 by American Society of Clinical OncologyCONTEXTKey ObjectiveIs cognitive impairment in pediatric cancer survivors related to family factors?Knowledge GeneratedA majority of reviewed studies identified family sociodemographic characteristics, eg, socioeconomic status or parental education, predictive of cognitive and educational outcomes in survivors of pediatric cancer. However, emerging evidence also suggests connections between family or parent-child dyadic interactions and cognitive functioning. Unfortunately, these studies have rarely included longitudinal designs to establish the direction of influence between family functioning and cognitive impairment, and family factors are rarely incorporated in intervention work to prevent or reduce cognitive late-effects.RelevanceAlthough sociodemographic disparities in cognitive risk for children treated for cancer may be expected, clinicians and researchers should also be aware of possible bidirectional influences of survivor cognitive impairment and family interactions or the adjustment of family members. Significant gaps exist in our understanding of these connections, and research is needed to identify modifiable targets for family-based interventions.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: All authorsCollection and assembly of data: All authorsData 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 Impairment and Family Functioning of Survivors of Pediatric Cancer: A Systematic ReviewThe 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).No 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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".