Aging in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Implications for Future Care
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.20.02534 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 22, 2021 PMID: 33886351 Aging in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Implications for Future Care Ilse Schuitema, PhD1xIlse SchuitemaSearch for articles by this author; Tyler Alexander , PhD2xTyler AlexanderSearch for articles by this author; Melissa M. Hudson , MD2,3xMelissa M. HudsonSearch for articles by this author; Kevin R. Krull , PhD2,4xKevin R. KrullSearch for articles by this author; and Kim Edelstein , PhD5xKim EdelsteinSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Department of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands2Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN3Department of Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN4Department of Psychology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN5Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02534 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2021 by American Society of Clinical OncologyCONTEXTKey ObjectiveTo describe the phenotype of cellular, physiological, and cognitive aging in adult survivors of childhood cancers.Knowledge GeneratedTelomere shortening, chronic inflammation, frailty, severe, disabling, or life-threatening chronic health conditions, and neurocognitive deficits occur in survivors during young to mid adulthood, changes normally seen in adults decades older. This phenotype is most salient after treatment targeting the CNS.RelevanceAdult survivors of childhood cancer are at risk for the development of chronic diseases and neurocognitive decline that are typically observed in older adults, suggesting early and/or accelerated aging. Identifying markers of biological or functional age could aid in developing supportive care interventions for survivors most at risk.SUPPORTSupported in part by the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (K.E.), and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (A.T., M.H., K.R.K.). A.T. was also supported by a training grant from the National Cancer Institute (T32 CA225590 to K.R.K.).AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Ilse Schuitema, Melissa Hudson, Kevin R. Krull, Kim EdelsteinAdministrative support: Kevin R. KrullCollection and assembly of data: Ilse Schuitema, Tyler Alexander, Kim EdelsteinData 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 INTERESTAging in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Implications for Future CareThe 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).Melissa HudsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, Princess Máxima CenterKevin R. KrullPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from Wolters KluwerNo 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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".