Emotional, behavioral, and physical health consequences of loneliness in young adult survivors of childhood cancer: Results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young adults in the general population are at risk of experiencing loneliness, which has been associated with physical and mental health morbidities. The prevalence and consequences of loneliness in young adult survivors of childhood cancer remain unknown. METHODS: A total of 9664 young adult survivors of childhood cancer (median age at diagnosis 10.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 5-15], 27.1 years at baseline [IQR, 23-32]) and 2221 siblings enrolled in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study completed a self-reported survey question assessing loneliness on the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 at baseline and follow-up (median follow-up, 6.6 years). Multivariable models evaluated the prevalence of loneliness at baseline only, follow-up only, and baseline + follow-up, and its associations with emotional distress, health behaviors, and chronic conditions at follow-up. RESULTS: Survivors were more likely than siblings to report loneliness at baseline + follow-up (prevalence ratio [PR] 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.0) and at follow-up only (PR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7). Loneliness at baseline + follow-up was associated with elevated risk of anxiety (relative risk [RR], 9.8; 95% CI, 7.5-12.7), depression (RR, 17.9; 95% CI, 14.1-22.7), and current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3) at follow-up. Loneliness at follow-up only was associated with suicidal ideation (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), heavy/risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5), and new-onset grade 2-4 chronic conditions (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Young adult survivors of childhood cancer have elevated risk of experiencing loneliness, which is associated with future emotional distress, risky health behaviors, and new-onset chronic conditions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".