Cancer Pain and Depression: A Systematic Review of Age‐Related Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is a common and debilitating symptom experienced by cancer patients of all ages. Cancer pain is associated with elevated levels of depression; however, age-related patterns in this relationship remain unclear. This information is important to provide effective palliation of pain and depression to the growing numbers of older cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of the literature regarding age-related patterns in the intensity or prevalence of depression among cancer patients with pain. METHODS: Medical and psychological literature databases were searched to identify eligible studies. The methodological quality and outcomes of the studies were compiled and systematically reviewed. RESULTS: Five articles, describing four studies, met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Due to high levels of cross-study methodological variability, a qualitative review was undertaken. Three of the four studies did not find evidence for age-related patterns in depression. The fourth study found that depression increased with age. CONCLUSION: The weight of the evidence suggests that younger and older cancer patients with pain report comparable levels of depression. However, this conclusion remains preliminary due to the methodological limitations of the available studies. Research is needed to more adequately address this important issue.
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 | 0.024 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".