Abstract A091: Clinical and demographic differences between children and young adult US-born and non-US-born Latinos diagnosed with classical Hodgkin Lymphoma in the MESH Study Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The incidence of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) varies by demographic factors including race/ethnicity and birthplace. For this study, we aimed to describe differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between US-born and non-US-born Latinos diagnosed with CHL overall in our study cohort. As age has a known association with histological subtype and other clinical characteristics in CHL, we further stratified by age and evaluated Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) (15 to 39 years old at time of diagnosis) and older adults (40+ years old at time of diagnosis) separately Methods: For the (M)ulti (E)thnic (S)tudy of (H)odgkin Lymphoma (MESH) we collected formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor blocks from 912 multiethnic cases of CHL from multiple sites, including cancer centers, hospitals, and Residual Tissue Repositories. Cases in our study cohort were diagnosed between 1986 and 2019. We utilized Fisher's exact test to assess statistical differences of categorical demographics and clinical characteristics between Latino cases with US and non-US birthplace in our cohort. Logistic regression models were used where the dependent variable was each binary "Characteristic" with independent variables: birthplace (nonUS-born vs US-born), age at diagnosis, and sex. Results: Three hundred fifty-eight cases (39.3%) were identified as Latino based on available records. We were able to confirm the country of birth for 202 (56.4%) of these cases, with 71 US-born and 131 nonUS-born Latinos. Among nonUS-born cases, 79% reported Mexico as their birthplace. The country of origin is representative of our local population. nonUS-born Latinos were older (p=<0.001 ) and had a higher prevalence of late stage disease at the time of diagnosis (p <0.001) than their US-born counterparts. nonUS-born Latinos were more likely to be of low socioeconomic status (SES) compared to US-born Latinos (P-value=0.003). We observed no significant differences in sex, first course of treatment, B symptoms, histology, or Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) tumor status between the two groups. Within AYA cases, we found a significant difference in stage with US-born Latinos having earlier stages at diagnosis (P-value <0.001) compared to Latin American-born AYA Latinos in our cohort. We also noted a trend towards Latin American- born Latinos having a lower SES (P-value=0.009). There were no significant differences in sex, first course of treatment, B symptoms, histology, or EBV status. These trends were also evident after adjusting for age and sex. Specifically, after adjusting for age and sex, there was a 7.24 and 4.83 times higher odds of having later stage (P=0.0002) and lower SES (P=0.01), respectively, among non-US-born compared to US born. Conclusions: We observed significant differences in age, stage at diagnosis, and socioeconomic status in cases by birthplace. Compared to US-Born AYA Latino patients, nonUS-born AYA Latino patients had a higher likelihood of having later stage and lower SES. Thus, targeting the disparities in this age group will be critical. Citation Format: Jose Alejandro. Aparicio, Jia Angel. Wan, Esther Lam, Mallory Bernstein, Sheeja T. Pullarkat, Deepthi Karunasiri, Anthony Colombo, Joo Song, Chun Chao, Brenda Hernandez, Tomohiro Aoki, Pamela B. Allen, Christopher R. Flowers, Sophia Wang, Juanita Evans, Owen Chen, Elva Jiménez Hernández, Juan Carlos Núñez Enríquez, José Arellano Galindo, María del Rosario Mora Campos, Susana Elizabeth Anaya Aguirre, David Scott, Megan Lim, Leon Bernal-Mizrachi, Jakub Svoboda, Christian Steidl, David Conti, Imran Siddiqi, Juan Manuel Mejia Arangure, Wendy Cozen. Clinical and demographic differences between children and young adult US-born and non-US-born Latinos diagnosed with classical Hodgkin Lymphoma in the MESH Study Cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr A091.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".