MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use and correlates of carotid ultrasound in survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

2022· article· en· W4281978442 on OpenAlexaff
Yolanda Bryce, Gregory T. Armstrong, Wendy M. Leisenring, Jillian Whitton, Eric J. Chow, Brent R. Weil, Bryan V. Dieffenbach, Rebecca M. Howell, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Paul C. Nathan, Emily S. Tonorezos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Heart failureMyocardial infarctionCancerInternal medicinePoisson regressionHead and neck cancerCardiologyLung cancerRadiation therapyDiseasePediatricsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e22023 Background: Survivors of childhood cancer with history of radiation therapy (RT) to the head/neck/chest are at increased risk for stroke. Children’s Oncology Group Guidelines recommend carotid ultrasound (CU) when clinically indicated or 10 years after RT ≥ 40Gy to the neck. Yet, the use of CU has not been previously described. Methods: 8,693 survivors of childhood cancer (median age at diagnosis 8.0 years, range 0-20; median age at evaluation 37.4, range 18-65) diagnosed between 1970-1999 were asked if they had ever had a CU. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) was defined as any of the following: stroke, congestive heart failure, hypertension, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, or arrythmia. Prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated; age and sex-adjusted multivariable Poisson regression models evaluated factors associated with CU. Results: 4.9% (427) of survivors had a history of stroke and 28% (2,442) had a history of any CVD. Of these, 40.0% (171) with a history of stroke and 28.6% (748) with any CVD had CU. Comparatively, 14.6% (1,404) without a stroke and 11.1% (798) without any CVD had a CU (both p<0.0001 vs those with condition). Among survivors without CVD, having seen only a primary care physician was not associated with CU (PR 0.84 95% CI 0.58-1.25, p = 0.36), while seeing a cancer specialist (+/- a primary care physician) (PR 1.83 95% CI 1.23-2.79, p = 0.036) was associated with increased likelihood of CU compared to seeing neither. Survivors who had had other surveillance studies, including a colonoscopy (PR 1.76 95% CI 1.44-2.17, p<0.0001), skin cancer exam (PR 1.62 95% CI 1.30-2.03, p=0.0002), or mammogram (PR 2.06 95%CI 1.42-3.07, p<0.0001) were more likely to have a carotid ultrasound, compared to those without that test. Having a history of anthracyclines or RT to the neck were associated with higher prevalence of CU, with RT to the neck exhibiting a dose-response relationship (Table). Conclusions: CU was more common among survivors with a history of stroke or other CVD event. In those without CVD, CU use was associated with anthracyclines and RT dose exposures and with care provided by a cancer specialist. A high proportion (70%) of survivors who received >40Gy RT to the neck have never had a CU, suggesting that greater awareness of guidelines is needed.[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)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207