MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Inequitable poverty exposures in a clinical trial cohort of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: an opportunity to address racial and ethnic disparities in pediatric oncology

2023· preprint· en· W4361270489 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine Karvonen, Puja J. Umaretiya, Victoria Koch, Yael Flamand, Rahela Aziz‐Bose, Lenka Ilcisin, Ariana Valenzuela, Peter D. Cole, Lisa Gennarini, Justine M. Kahn, Kara M. Kelly, Thai Hoa Tran, Bruno Michon, Jennifer Welch, Joanne Wolfe, Lewis B. Silverman, Abby R. Rosenberg, Kira Bona

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyMedicineCohortEthnic groupLymphoblastic LeukemiaHealth equityPediatricsGerontologyDemographyInternal medicineLeukemiaPublic healthPolitical sciencePathologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black and Hispanic children with leukemia experience inferior survival compared to non-Hispanic White (NHW) children. Identifying modifiable social determinants of health can inform intervention targets to address inequities. We characterized the frequency of income poverty and household material hardship (HMH) by race/ethnicity in a clinical trial cohort with de novo acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Compared to NHW families, Black and Hispanic families reported more frequent HMH (19% vs. 47% vs. 68% respectively); low-income (27% vs. 52% vs. 74%), and combined low-income and HMH (12% vs. 37% vs. 52%) poverty exposures. Disparate poverty exposures are interventional targets to address racial/ethnic outcome inequities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→