MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes among survivors of childhood cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

2023· article· en· W4379283094 on OpenAlexaff
Avram Denburg, Kevin Alexander Wong, Alexandra Moskalewicz, Sumit Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLow and middle income countriesChildhood cancerCancerHigh income countriesCohort studyDemographyCohortObservational studyDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10057 Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) account for most of the global childhood cancer burden. Though cure rates lag behind those in high-income countries (HICs), a substantial proportion of LMIC children do survive. Long-term side effects of cancer or cancer therapy (late effects) are well-documented among childhood cancer survivors (CCS) in HICs, but whether prevalence and risk factors of late effects are comparable in LMICs is unclear. We thus conducted a systematic review to assess LMIC CCS outcomes. Methods: Five major health sciences databases were searched from inception to November 2022 in all languages. We included observational studies conducted in LMICs (World Bank 2021 classification) that evaluated outcomes in CCSs diagnosed with any malignancy. Mean or median length of follow-up must have been ≥ 5 years from original cancer diagnosis. Meta-analyses were precluded by cohort and outcome heterogeneity. Results: Of 1,994 studies identified, 113 underwent full-text review and 21 met inclusion criteria (16 full articles and 5 conference abstracts). Studies were conducted in lower-middle income (N = 12, 57%) or upper-middle income (N = 9, 43%) countries; no low-income country data were found. Study regions were mainly South and East Asia (N = 10, 48%) and the Americas (N = 8, 38%). Almost half (N = 9, 43%) of studies were conducted in India and only one African study from Cameroon was identified. Over half (N = 12, 57%) of studies were cross-sectional in design. Only five (24%) cohorts were comprised entirely of 5-year survivors. CCS of all childhood cancer types were evaluated in 12 (57%) cohorts, and 9 (43%) were specific to one cancer type. Ten (48%) studies were conducted in a survivorship clinic. Second cancers, followed by endocrine, reproductive, and cardiovascular late effects were most frequently assessed. Second cancers were reported in 1%–11% of CCS cohorts (N = 10 studies). The prevalence of hypothyroidism and metabolic syndrome ranged from 2%-49% (N = 6 studies) and 4%-17% (N = 5 studies), respectively. Gonadal dysfunction ranged from 2%-82% (N = 6 studies). Cardiac dysfunction and hypertension ranged from 1%-16% (N = 3 studies) and 5-19% (N = 3 studies), respectively. Late effects of the musculoskeletal (N = 4 studies) and urinary (N = 4 studies) systems were least investigated. Conclusions: Substantial knowledge gaps exist in LMIC childhood cancer survivorship. Few LMIC-based studies were identified, with no low-income country data available. In middle-income countries, variability existed in how late effects were defined and assessed; data was also limited by selection bias and small sample sizes. Additional systematically collected data on LMIC CCS cohorts are urgently needed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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