Adverse Childhood Experiences, Resilience, and Cardiovascular Disease in Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACE, e.g., abuse, neglect, and/or household dysfunction experienced before the age of 18) and resilience on risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) has not previously been investigated in adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study among long-term, adult-aged survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Self-report questionnaires ascertained ACEs and resilience, and scores were compared between cases with serious/life-threatening CVD and controls without CVD matched on demographic and cardiotoxic treatment factors. RESULTS: Among 95 cases and 261 controls, the mean ACE score was 1.4 for both groups; 53.4% of survivors endorsed ≥1 ACE. No association was observed between ACEs or resilience and CVD in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: ACEs and resilience do not appear to contribute to CVD risk for adult survivors of childhood cancer with cardiotoxic treatment exposures. IMPACT: Although not associated with CVD in this population, ACEs are associated with serious health issues in other populations. Therefore, future studies could investigate the effects of ACEs on other health outcomes affecting childhood cancer survivors.
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 | 0.000 | 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".