Tenth International Conference of the Society for Integrative Oncology Translational Science in Integrative Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 107: The Effect of Two Types of Self-Administered Acupressure Compared to Standard of Care on Depression and Anxiety in Fatigued Breast Cancer Survivors Background: There are nearly 3 million breast cancer survivors (BCS) in the United States. Mood disorders in BCS are common, with 38% of women having moderate to high anxiety, and 22% having moderate to high depression. Depression may interfere with survivors’ quality of life, decreased adherence to adjuvant therapy and be associated with lower rates of survival. Current treatments for mood disorders can be difficult to implement and/or have unacceptable side effects; thus, there is a need for new treatments in this area. Methods: We compared the effect of 6 weeks of 2 types of self-administered acupressure (stimulating [SA] and relaxing [RA]) versus standard of care (SC) in 32 women for depression, and in 57 women with anxiety who reported ≥8 at baseline on the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) depression or anxiety subscales, as appropriate, and who were from an ongoing randomized clinical trial on acupressure for persistent cancer-related fatigue in BCS. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on mean differences of changes (baseline to week 6) in anxiety and depression subscales by group. Results: There was a significant decrease in depression (P = .02 vs SA; P = .06 vs SC) but not in anxiety (P = .36 vs SA; P = .46 vs SC) in the RA group compared with either SA or SC. This represents a −47% mean decrease from baseline in depression in the RA group versus −16% in the SA group and 22% in the SC group, and on average a movement from being borderline abnormal on the HADS depression subscale at baseline (9.2 ± 0.98, 0-21 point scale) to normal (4.9 ± 2.7) at 6 weeks. Conclusion: In this preliminary analysis, self-administered RA engenders a greater antidepressive response as compared with either SA or SC in fatigued BCS. These findings should be interpreted with caution given our small sample size. More rigorous studies are recommended.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.011 |
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".