MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Incidence and predictors of significant hearing loss requiring hearing assistive devices among childhood cancer survivors: A population-based study.

2019· article· en· W4240698369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sumit Gupta, Cindy Lau, Bonnie Cooke, Stephen F. Hall, Paul C. Nathan, Jason A. Beyea

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesKingston Health Sciences CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCumulative incidenceIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalPopulationCancer registryHazard ratioHearing lossRelative riskCancerDemographyPediatricsAudiologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10055 Background: Though hearing loss is a significant late effect among childhood cancer survivors, recent guidelines note insufficient evidence to quantify natural history or risk associated with specific exposures. We examined the long-term incidence and predictors of hearing loss requiring hearing amplification devices (HAD) using population-based healthcare data. Methods: In Ontario, Canada, HAD costs are subsidized by the provincial Assistive Devices Program (ADP). Ontario children age <18 years at cancer diagnosis between 1987-2016 were identified using a pediatric cancer registry and linked to ADP claims. The cumulative incidence of HAD use was compared between cases and matched controls. Patient, disease, and treatment predictors of HAD were examined. Results: We identified 11,842 cases and 59,210 matched controls. Cases were at higher risk of HAD [hazard ratio (HR) 12.8, 95% confidence interval (95CI) 9.8-16.7; p<0.001]. The cumulative incidence of HAD among survivors was 2.1% (95CI 1.7-2.5%) at 20-years and 6.4% (95CI 2.8-12.1%) at 30-years. 30-year incidence was highest in survivors of neuroblastoma (10.7%, 95CI 3.8-21.7%) and hepatoblastoma (16.2%, 95CI 8.6-26.0%). Predictors of HAD in multivariable analyses included age 0-4 years at diagnosis (vs. 5-9 years, HR 2.2, 95CI 1.4-3.3; p<0.001). Relative to no cisplatin exposure, patients receiving 1-200mg/m2 were not at greater risk, unlike those receiving higher cumulative doses (Table). Relative to no radiation, those receiving ≤32Gy were at no higher risk, unlike while those receiving >32Gy. Carboplatin exposure was not associated with HAD. Conclusions: Childhood cancer survivors are at elevated risk of requiring HAD which continues to rise between 20 and 30 years from diagnosis. Thresholds of cisplatin and radiation exposure exist above which risk substantially increases. Prolonged monitoring and trials of otoprotective agents are warranted in high-risk populations. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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 score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.353 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→