MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparing the impact of insufficient physical activity on cardiovascular disease in survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and sibling controls: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

2024· article· en· W4399281317 on OpenAlexaff
Aron Onerup, Qi Liu, Shizue Izumi, José Miguel Martı́nez, Stephanie B. Dixon, Bonnie Ky, Matthew J. Ehrhardt, Deo Kumar Srivastava, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Eric J. Chow, Melissa M. Hudson, Claire Snyder, Paul C. Nathan, Gregory T. Armstrong, Kirsten K. Ness, Yutaka Yasui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChildhood cancerDiseaseSiblingHodgkin lymphomaCancerLymphomaOncologyPediatricsInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10024 Background: Survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from anthracycline and radiation exposures. Whether the treatment-induced risk can be mitigated with physical activity is not known. We aimed to compare the impact of insufficient physical activity on CVD in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and controls. Methods: Participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) reported physical activity, which was translated into metabolic equivalent of task hours/week (MET) and categorized as 0, 1-8, or ≥9 METs. We estimated rate ratios (RR) for new onset (incident) congestive heart failure and any CVD (including heart attack, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, and valvular disease requiring interventions) during follow-up, accounting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, risky drinking, overweight/obesity, and treatment exposures (survivors only). Then we calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) for insufficient physical activity (< 9 METs). The attributable relative rate (ARR) was calculated by multiplying the PAF in survivors with the RR for CVD incidence in survivors compared to controls, resulting in an ARR for survivors that was compared to the PAF in controls. Results: In 2,357 Hodgkin survivors [50% female; [mean (SD)] 14.3 (4.1) years at diagnosis; 31.6 (5.8) years at start of follow-up, and 17.8 (7.6) years from diagnosis] and 3,949 sibling controls, 233 survivors and 19 controls developed congestive heart failure. 462 survivors and 95 controls developed any CVD. The PAF for congestive heart failure attributable to insufficient physical activity was larger in controls (38.0%) than survivors (22.3%). However, with RR 20.3 (95% CI 12.6-32.5) for congestive heart failure for survivors compared to controls, the ARR in survivors (452.1%) revealed a 12 times higher incidence of congestive heart failure attributable to insufficient physical activity in Hodgkin survivors than in controls (452.1%/38.0%). The ARR indicates that 4.5 of the 20-fold higher risk of congestive heart failure in survivors vs. siblings is attributable to insufficient physical activity in the survivors. For any CVD, the PAFs were comparable in survivors (13.7%) and controls (11.7%). With RR 10.2 (95% CI 8.2-12.7) for any CVD for survivors compared to controls, the ARR for any CVD in survivors (139.7%) was also 12 times higher than the incidence attributable to insufficient physical activity in controls (139.7%/11.7%). Conclusions: Our results suggest that the magnitude of treatment-induced CVD risk that can be mitigated by physical activity is considerable. This offers a modifiable target and provides rationale for exercise interventions aimed at reducing CVD in survivors at high risk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.347 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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