Insomnia in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the prevalence, clinical characteristics and risk factors for insomnia in patients treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. A total of 327 patients completed a battery of questionnaires assessing sleep and related issues (i.e. anxiety, depression, fatigue, quality of life). Results indicated that 31.5% of the patients currently reported non-specific sleep difficulties, while 18% met specific criteria for an insomnia syndrome. In most of these latter cases (95%), the insomnia was chronic (duration of 6 months or more). Nearly half of patients with an insomnia syndrome reported that the onset of their sleep difficulties followed the cancer diagnosis. A similar proportion had no comorbid clinical levels of anxiety or depression. Risk factors for the presence of an insomnia syndrome included a younger age, a worse prognosis, and the presence of intestinal, pain, depressive, and androgen blockade-related symptoms. Thus, insomnia is a frequent problem associated with prostate cancer, that often occurs independently of anxiety and depression, but seems to be influenced by the presence of physical and psychological symptoms associated with prostate cancer and its treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".