Aftercare of Childhood Cancer Survivors in Switzerland: Protocol for a Prospective Multicenter Observational Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer become long-term survivors. For most of them, regular follow-up examinations to detect and treat late effects are necessary, especially in adulthood. The transition from pediatric to adult-focused follow-up care is a critical moment for childhood cancer survivors (CCSs); a substantial proportion of CCSs are lost to follow-up in this transition process and do not attend follow-up care in adulthood. This can have serious effects on survivors’ health if late effects are not discovered in a timely fashion. OBJECTIVE In this study, we primarily assess the current follow-up situation, related needs, and knowledge of adolescent and young adult CCSs who have transitioned from pediatric to adult-focused follow-up care. As secondary objectives, we evaluate transition readiness, identify facilitating factors of transition and adherence to long-term follow-up (LTFU) care, and compare three different transition models. METHODS The Aftercare of Childhood Cancer Survivors (ACCS) Switzerland study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study that was approved by the ethics committee in February 2019. We are recruiting CCSs from three pediatric oncology centers and using questionnaires to answer the study questions. RESULTS To date, we have recruited 58 participants. The study is ongoing, and recruitment of participants will continue until January 2021. CONCLUSIONS The ACCS study will provide information on CCSs’ preferences and expectations for follow-up care and their transition into the adult setting. The results will help improve the LTFU care and cancer knowledge of CCSs and subsequently enhance adherence to follow-up care and reduce loss to follow-up in adulthood. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04284189; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04284189?id=NCT04284189 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/18898
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".