Prostate cancer treatments and their side effects are associated with increased insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Between 25% and 40% of prostate cancer patients report insomnia symptoms. Although a possible role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RTH) and some of their side effects have been postulated, this issue has rarely been investigated. This study aimed to (1) compare the evolution of insomnia symptoms and somatic symptoms, which may affect sleep quality (i.e., hot flashes, night sweats, and urinary symptoms), in patients receiving combined ADT and RTH with that in patients receiving RTH only and (2) assess the mediating role of somatic symptoms in the relationship of ADT and RTH with insomnia symptoms. METHODS: Sixty men scheduled to receive RTH for prostate cancer, with (n = 28) or without (n = 32) ADT, were assessed prior to receiving any treatment (baseline) and at seven additional times over 16 months (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 months) using the Insomnia Severity Index and the Physical Symptoms Questionnaire. RESULTS: A significant interaction effect was found indicating an increase in insomnia scores in ADT-RTH patients at 2, 4, and 6 months, as compared with baseline, and stable scores in RTH patients. A significant mediating role of hot flashes and night sweats was found in the relationship between ADT and insomnia symptoms. The relationship with RTH was also significantly mediated by these two symptoms albeit more strongly by excessive urinary frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Androgen deprivation therapy is associated with an increased risk for insomnia, and side effects of ADT and RTH appear to play a role in the development of insomnia in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".