Relationship between objectively recorded hot flashes and sleep disturbances among breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between various characteristics of objectively recorded hot flashes and sleep disturbances in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Fifty-six women who had completed a similar treatment protocol for a first diagnosis of breast cancer within the previous 3 months wore ambulatory sternal skin conductance and polysomnography devices for a home-based nighttime recording of hot flashes and sleep. RESULTS: Hot flash frequency was not associated with polysomnographic variables (r = -0.18 to 0.21) or beta-I and beta-II electroencephalographic activities (r = -0.01 and 0.03) but was significantly correlated with increased slow (r = 0.28) and delta (r = 0.32) electroencephalographic activities. A slower hot flash onset and a longer hot flash duration were associated with greater polysomnographic impairments (r = -0.50 to 0.48). Greater sleep disturbances were found during hot flash onset or hot flash plateau as compared with the pre-hot flash period (greater percentage of wake time, lower percentage of stage II sleep, and lower percentage of rapid eye movement sleep, all P values < 0.05). The probability that a stage change to a lighter sleep occurred was significantly greater during hot flash onset (11%) than during hot flash plateau (6%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the speed and duration of hot flashes would contribute more importantly to sleep alterations than hot flash frequency. Sleep disturbances tend to occur simultaneously with hot flashes, suggesting that these two nocturnal symptoms are manifestations of a higher-order mechanism involving the central nervous system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".