Long-term alterations in somatosensory functioning in survivors of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Cancer and its treatment can have lasting consequences on somatosensation, including pain, which is often underrecognized and undertreated. Research characterizing the impact of cancer on pain and sensory processing in survivors of childhood cancer is scarce. This study aimed to quantify generalized differences in pain and sensory processing in survivors of childhood cancer compared with reference data using a standardized thermal and mechanical quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol. The association between demographic, clinical (eg, leukemia vs other cancers and treatment exposures), and psychosocial (eg, anxiety and pain catastrophizing) variables and sensitivity to pain and sensory stimuli were also evaluated. Participants were 56 survivors of various types of childhood cancer (52% male, Mage = 13.5 years, SD = 3.2, range = 8-17 years). On average, children were 7 years (SD = 4.1, range = 1.2-16.5) post treatment. Almost all participants (86%) had at least 1 abnormal QST parameter compared with age- and sex-matched reference data; however, few participants self-reported the presence of sensory abnormalities. Generally, participants exhibited reduced sensitivity across the QST parameters examined (Ps < 0.05, ds = 0.40-3.45). A significant minority (45%) also exhibited pain sensitization (P <0.001, d = 0.42). Several risk factors for changes in sensory processing were identified, including current age, history of leukemia, certain treatment exposures (eg, vincristine cumulative dose, major surgery, and bone marrow or stem cell transplant), time off treatment, and higher anxiety and pain catastrophizing scores. Overall, this study demonstrated that somatosensory changes are prevalent in survivors of childhood cancer years after the completion of treatment. Future research is needed to understand long-term implications of altered somatosensation in this complex population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".