MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364381276 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccao.2023.01.011

Cardiovascular Risk Factor Disparities in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer Compared With the General Population

2023· article· en· W4364381276 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Noyd, Qi Liu, Yutaka Yasui, Eric J. Chow, Smita Bhatia, Paul C. Nathan, Andrew P. Landstrom, Emily S. Tonorezos, Jacqueline Casillas, Amy M. Berkman, Kirsten K. Ness, Daniel A. Mulrooney, Wendy M. Leisenring, Carrie R. Howell, Jamie Shoag, Anne C. Kirchhoff, Rebecca M. Howell, Todd M. Gibson, Leah L. Zullig, Gregory T. Armstrong, Kevin C. Oeffinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC CardioOncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineCohortPopulationDemographyDiabetes mellitusObesityCohort studyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is unknown whether a history of childhood cancer modifies the established disparities in cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) observed in the general population. We sought to determine if disparities in CVRFs by race/ethnicity are similar among childhood cancer survivors compared with the general population. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a retrospective cohort with a longitudinal follow-up of 24,084 5-year survivors diagnosed between 1970 and 1999. Multivariable piecewise exponential regression estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, and ≥2 CVRFs by race/ethnicity. The CCSS sibling cohort and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cohort were used to compare the sociodemographic-adjusted IRRs for same-race/same-ethnicity disparities. Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) (n = 1,092) and Hispanic (n = 1,405) survivors compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) (n = 13,960) survivors reported a higher cumulative incidence of diabetes (8.4%, 9.7%, and 5.1%, respectively); obesity (47.2%, 48.9%, and 30.2%, respectively); multiple CVRFs (17.7%, 16.6%, and 12.3%, respectively); and, for NHB survivors, hypertension (19.5%, 13.6%, and 14.3%, respectively) by 40 years of age (P < 0.001). Controlling for sociodemographic and treatment factors compared with NHW survivors, IRRs for NHB were increased for hypertension (IRR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.8), obesity (IRR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.4-2.1), and multiple CVRFs (IRR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.1). IRRs for Hispanic survivors were increased for diabetes (IRR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.2-2.6) and obesity (IRR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2-1.7). The pattern of IRRs for CVRF differences was similar among CCSS sibling and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cohorts. The higher burden of CVRFs among NHB and Hispanic survivors compared with NHW survivors was similar to the general population. The promotion of cardiovascular health equity is critical in this high-risk population.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC CardioOncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207