MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415695584 · doi:10.1007/s12519-025-00989-1

Expert consensus on disease-based long-term follow-up care plans for childhood cancer survivors

2025· review· en· W4415695584 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersAmerican Lebanese Syrian Associated CharitiesSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital
KeywordsSurvivorship curveChildhood cancerBlueprintFoundation (evidence)MEDLINECancer survivorshipPediatric cancerQuality (philosophy)Pediatric surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) are at increased risk of long-term treatment-related complications. Although international guidelines support risk-based long-term follow-up (LTFU) care, its standardized implementation in China has been limited. To address this gap, the National Children's Medical Center-Shanghai convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to develop disease-based LTFU care plans tailored to the Chinese healthcare context. METHODS: Guided by established international frameworks (Children's Oncology Group, International Guideline Harmonization Group, and PanCareFollowUp), an expert group representing 25 institutions across China developed consensus-based LTFU care plans for common pediatric cancer patients and post-hematopoietic cell transplant survivors. Each care plan includes core components: a treatment summary, risk stratification for late effects, recommended surveillance, psychosocial evaluation, and lifestyle guidance. The panel also developed a consensus on the specific roles of oncologists, primary care providers, and subspecialists. RESULTS: Finalized care plans provide structured, risk-adapted follow-up pathways for CCSs. The model emphasizes multidisciplinary collaboration, clinical feasibility, and scalability across diverse settings. As part of the care process, a centralized survivorship database has been integrated to facilitate clinical use and data collection. This system supports the generation of standardized treatment summaries and longitudinal documentation of late effects across the continuum of survivorship care. Tools, such as clinician checklists and survivor education templates, were also developed to support clinical use and promote consistency across institutions. A list of outcome metrics was proposed to evaluate the implementation outcomes of this initiative. CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus establishes an innovative, nationally coordinated, disease-specific LTFU care framework for CCSs in China. This study provides a practical foundation for improving survivorship care quality and guiding clinical practice nationwide. This model can serve as a blueprint for other low- and middle-income countries seeking to strengthen LTFU care for CCSs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.328 · 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