MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408387407 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32030162

Parental Reports on Late Effects and Follow-Up Needs: A Single-Center Assessment of Childhood Cancer Survivorship Care in Kenya

2025· article· en· W4408387407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Mageto, Jesse Lemmen, Festus Njuguna, Nancy Midiwo, Sandra Langat, Terry A. Vik, Gertjan J.L. Kaspers

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveMedicineChildhood cancerFamily medicineCancerPediatricsRadiation therapyGerontologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer will likely increase the number of childhood cancer survivors in resource-poor countries. This study explored survivorship care in Kenya through parental reports on late effects and the follow-up needs of childhood cancer survivors. Parents of Kenyan childhood cancer survivors (under 18 years old) who completed treatment for at least one year were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires from 2021 to 2022. Parents of 54 survivors were interviewed. Survivors had solid tumors (52%) and hematological tumors (48%). Most (52%) received chemotherapy combined with either surgery or radiotherapy. Many survivors (72%) experienced symptoms according to their parents. The most prevalent symptoms were pain (37%), fatigue (26%), and ocular problems (26%). Eleven percent of parents observed limitations in the daily activities of the survivors. Parents of survivors with two or more symptoms were more likely to rate symptoms as moderate to severe (p = 0.016). Parents expressed concern about late effects (48%). Only 28% were informed about late effects at the hospital, despite 87% indicating they would have welcomed this information. Follow-up care was deemed important by 98%. Recommendations included providing education about late effects and organizing survivor meetings. Survivorship clinics should be established to ensure that follow-up information and care are accessible.

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)0.004
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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