MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988218806 · doi:10.1002/cncr.24002

Mental health, treatment preferences, advance care planning, location, and quality of death in advanced cancer patients with dependent children

2008· article· en· W1988218806 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew Nilsson, Paul K. Maciejewski, Baohui Zhang, Alexi A. Wright, E. D. Trice, Anna C. Muriel, Robert J. Friedlander, Karen Fasciano, Susan D. Block, Holly G. Prigerson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityNational Cancer InstituteDana-Farber Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthYale University
KeywordsMedicineCancerConfidence intervalQuality of life (healthcare)Odds ratioMental healthPalliative careAdvance care planningAnxietyProspective cohort studyPanic disorderPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinicians observe that advanced cancer patients with dependent children agonize over the impact their death will have on their children. The objective of this study was to determine empirically whether advanced cancer patients with and without dependent children differ in treatment preferences, mental health, and end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. METHODS: Coping with Cancer is a National Cancer Institute/National Institute of Mental Health-funded, multi-institutional, prospective cohort study of 668 patients with advanced cancer. Patients with and without dependent children were compared on rates of psychiatric disorders, advance care planning (ACP), EOL care, quality of their last week of life, and location of death. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, patients with advanced cancer who had dependent children were more likely to meet panic disorder criteria (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.41; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.13-13.69), more likely to be worried (mean difference in standard deviations [delta], 0.09; P=.006), and more likely to prefer aggressive treatment over palliative care (AOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.07-2.93). Patients with dependent children were less likely to engage in ACP (eg, do not resuscitate orders: AOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75) and had a worse quality of life in the last week of life (delta, 0.15; P=.007). Among spousal caregivers, those with dependent children were more likely to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (AOR, 4.53; 95% CI, 1.47-14) and generalized anxiety disorder (AOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.29-12.16). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dependent children were more anxious, were less likely to engage in ACP, and were more likely to have a worse quality of life in their last week of life. Advanced cancer patients and spousal caregivers with dependent children represent a particularly distressed group that warrants further clinical attention, research, and support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations158
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207