MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410023289 · doi:10.2196/66834

Area-Level Indices and Health Care Use in a Pediatric Brain and Central Nervous System Tumor Cohort: Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4410023289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yvette H. Tran, Seho Park, Scott Coven, Eneida A. Mendonça

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPublic healthSocial deprivationCohortPopulationSocial vulnerabilityCohort studyObservational studyPoisson regressionDemographyHealth careGerontologyPediatricsEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionPsychiatryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While survival among pediatric patients with cancer has advanced, disparities persist. Public health tools such as the Area Deprivation Index, the Child Opportunity Index (COI), and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are potential proxies for social determinants of health and could help researchers, public health practitioners, and clinicians identify neighborhoods or populations most likely to experience adverse outcomes. However, evidence regarding their relationship with health care use, especially in the pediatric population with cancer, remains mixed. Objective: We sought to evaluate the relationship between emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations with these area-level indices in our study population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of pediatric patients with brain and central nervous system tumors in a single Midwestern state who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2020. We fitted zero-inflated Poisson models for counts of ED and inpatient visits to determine if any of these use measures were associated with our 3 area-level indices. Finally, we mapped index quintiles onto neighborhoods to visualize and compare how each index differentially ranks neighborhoods. Results: Our study cohort consisted of 524 patients; 78.6% (n=412) of them had no recorded ED visit, and 39.7% (n=208) had no record of hospitalization. Moderate (coefficient=0.306; P=.01) and high (coefficient=0.315; P=.01) deprivation were associated with more ED visits. Both low child opportunity (coefficient=0.497; P<.001) and very high child opportunity (coefficient=0.328; P=.01) were associated with more ED visits. All quintiles of SVI were associated with ED visits, but the relationship was not dose-dependent. Low and very high deprivation were associated with hospitalizations, but COI and SVI were not. Additionally, by overlaying index quintiles onto census tracts and census block groups, we showed that most patients who had an ED visit lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods based on Area Deprivation Index rankings, but not necessarily COI or SVI rankings. Conclusions: Although indices provide useful context about the environment in which our patient population resides in, we found little evidence that neighborhood conditions as measured by these indices consistently or reliably relate to health care use.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→