Financial hardship and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage in long-term childhood cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term survivors of childhood cancer face elevated risk for financial hardship. We evaluate whether childhood cancer survivors live in areas of greater deprivation and the association with self-reported financial hardships. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study between 1970 and 1999 and self-reported financial information from 2017 to 2019. We measured neighborhood deprivation with the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on current zip code. Financial hardship was measured with validated surveys that captured behavioral, material and financial sacrifice, and psychological hardship. Bivariate analyses described neighborhood differences between survivors and siblings. Generalized linear models estimated effect sizes between ADI and financial hardship adjusting for clinical factors and personal socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Analysis was restricted to 3475 long-term childhood cancer survivors and 923 sibling controls. Median ages at time of evaluation was 39 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 33-46 years and 47 years (IQR = 39-59 years), respectively. Survivors resided in areas with greater deprivation (ADI ≥ 50: 38.7% survivors vs 31.8% siblings; P < .001). One quintile increases in deprivation were associated with small increases in behavioral (second quintile, P = .017) and psychological financial hardship (second quintile, P = .009; third quintile, P = .014). Lower psychological financial hardship was associated with individual factors including greater household income (≥$60 000 income, P < .001) and being single (P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood cancer survivors were more likely to live in areas with socioeconomic deprivation. Neighborhood-level disadvantage and personal socioeconomic circumstances should be evaluated when trying to assist childhood cancer survivors with financial hardships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".