MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neurocognitive outcomes in survivors of early adolescent and young adult (eAYA) hematologic cancers from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

2021· article· en· W3170497674 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Yuan Wang, Yan Chen, Yutaka Yasui, Wendy Stock, Wendy M. Leisenring, Gregory T. Armstrong, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Eric J. Chow, Kevin R. Krull, Tara O. Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitivePediatricsOdds ratioLogistic regressionCancerInternal medicineYoung adultPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10029 Background: Neurocognitive impairment in eAYA hematologic cancer survivors has not been well described, despite intensive neurotoxic therapies. We examined prevalence and risk for such impairment in hematologic cancer survivors diagnosed during eAYA compared to a younger age. Methods: We identified 1,213 eAYA (diagnosed at 15-21 years; median [range] follow-up age 40 [30-54]) and 4,538 childhood (diagnosed at <15 years; median age 30 [17-48]) survivors of ALL (n= 301 vs 3274), AML (n= 77 vs 424), and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL; n= 835 vs 840) from the CCSS (diagnosed 1970-1999) who completed the Neurocognitive Questionnaire. Impairment was defined as a score >90% of normative data in task efficiency (TE), organization (Org), memory (Mem), and emotional regulation (ER) domains. 1,014 age-matched siblings were controls. Treatment by diagnosis group, chronic health conditions, health status and health behaviors were examined as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment using multivariable logistic regression. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% CI are reported. Results: Prevalence of neurocognitive impairment (≥1 impaired domain) was similar for eAYAs and childhood survivors of HL (31.0% vs 29.6%, p=0.54) and AML (36.4% vs 40.3%, p=0.51), although eAYA AML survivors were more likely to have impaired Mem (OR=2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.4). eAYA ALL survivors were less likely to have neurocognitive impairment than childhood ALL survivors (28.2% vs 38.5%, p<.001) due to lower risk for impaired TE (OR=0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.0) and Org (OR=0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.9). No factors, including cranial radiation (RT), explained the rate differences. Treatment by diagnosis group (including cranial RT in ALL, chest RT in HL, and salvage therapy use) was not consistently associated with neurocognitive impairment in eAYA survivors. However, anthracycline dose ≥120mg/m2 was a risk factor for impaired ER (OR=6.0, 95% CI 2.0-17.9) only in eAYA ALL survivors. Presence of a neurologic health condition was associated with impairment in all 4 domains in eAYA (ORs ranged 1.7-2.9) and childhood cancer survivors (ORs ranged 1.9-5.3). eAYA survivors with a respiratory condition were more likely to have impaired TE (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.8). Being in good general health was associated with less impairment across all 4 domains for eAYA (ORs ranged 0.2-0.4) and childhood survivors (ORs ranged 0.3-0.5). eAYA survivors who never smoked were less likely to have impaired ER (OR=0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) than those who smoke. Conclusions: Survivors of hematologic cancers diagnosed during eAYA are susceptible to neurocognitive impairment at rates similar to those diagnosed at younger ages. Having comorbidities and being in fair/poor general health are risk factors for impairment. Higher anthracycline exposure in ALL survivors diagnosed during eAYA was the only therapy associated with impairment rates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207