Prevalence and characteristics of neuropathic pain in adolescent survivors of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neuropathic pain (NP) in individuals with cancer can arise from the cancer itself or its treatments. The prevalence of NP has been estimated in children living with cancer; however, the prevalence in adolescent survivorship is unknown. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of NP among adolescent survivors of childhood cancer and explore biopsychosocial factors associated with NP. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of cancer survivors (diagnosed > 18 months prior) aged 13-18 years in a pediatric cancer survivorship clinic. A survey was administered to participants assessing demographic, pain and psychosocial characteristics; moreover, NP was measured using self-report screening tools (painDETECT and Pediatric PainSCAN©). Disease characteristics were extracted from participants' health records. Descriptive statistics were used to report prevalence rates, pain, cancer and treatment characteristics. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to examine between group characteristics. RESULTS: 142 participants completed the study (median age 15, 52% female, 51% White). Primary cancer diagnosis was acute lymphoblastic leukemia in 53% of participants. The prevalence of pain was 23% (33/142) and that of NP was estimated to be 11% (16/142). Participants with NP (n = 16) had higher pain catastrophizing scores than participants with non-NP (n = 17; p = 0.0020). CONCLUSIONS: Pain, including NP, is common in adolescent survivors of childhood cancer. Further research is needed to better understand the experience of NP in this population, including its trajectory over time, to improve pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Health care providers should routinely screen for pain in adolescent cancer survivors to initiate appropriate treatments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".