MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Household material hardship and parental distress in a multicenter clinical trial for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

2021· article· en· W3171809046 on OpenAlexaffabout
Puja J. Umaretiya, Victoria Koch, Kristen E. Stevenson, Peter D. Cole, Lisa Gennarini, Justine M. Kahn, Kara M. Kelly, Thai-Hoa Tran, Bruno Michon, Jennifer JG Welch, Joanne Wolfe, Lewis B. Silverman, Kira Bona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialDistressPediatric cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialPovertyPediatricsCancerInternal medicinePsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10025 Background: Poverty is associated with inferior psychosocial function among parents of children with cancer. Severe parental distress during treatment predicts future poor mental health for both parents and children. It is also associated with impaired parental cognitive bandwidth and executive function, which may have implications for treatment adherence. Efforts to identify poverty-exposures amenable to intervention are essential to improving survivorship quality of life for the > 90% of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who will be long-term survivors. Household material hardship (HMH) is a targetable poverty exposure defined as at least 1 of 3 unmet basic needs including food, housing, or utilities. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL Consortium trial 16-001 is the first pediatric oncology clinical trial to systematically evaluate HMH. We investigated the hypothesis that HMH exposure independently predicts severe parent psychological distress during ALL therapy. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed ALL ages 1-17 years were enrolled on the DFCI 16-001 embedded HMH cohort study at 8 U.S. and Canadian centers. Secondary interim analyses used baseline (within 32-days of trial enrollment) and 6-mos parent-reported sociodemographic data, the Kessler-6 (K6) Psychological Distress scale, and trial-collected child and disease data. Severe psychological distress was defined as a K6 > = 13. Multivariable cox regression evaluated baseline HMH-exposure and parent distress at baseline and 6-mos adjusting for child’s initial ALL risk group (Very High Risk (VHR) vs other) and marital status (single vs dual parent). Results: Among 258 families with evaluable data, 34% reported baseline HMH. Families were predominantly English-speaking (54%) dual parent households (71%). Children were a median of 5.7 years (IQR 1.0-17.99) at diagnosis and predominantly non-Hispanic white (66%) with expected disease distribution by immunophenotype (84% B-cell). HMH (odds ratio (OR) 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-4.31, p = 0.025) and VHR initial risk group (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.06-5.06, p = 0.035) were independently associated with baseline severe psychological distress. Only HMH was independently associated with 6-mos severe psychological distress (OR 4.93, 95% CI 1.80-13.48, p = 0.002). Future analyses will investigate race and ethnicity associations with parental distress pending trial accrual for statistical power. Conclusions: HMH, a modifiable poverty exposure, is significantly associated with severe parent psychological distress at diagnosis that persists 6-months into pediatric ALL therapy. These findings identify a cohort at high risk of inferior mental health outcomes, and affirm the need for HMH-targeted interventions to support children and parents during cancer treatment to reduce poverty-associated outcome disparities in survivorship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→