The Effect of Group Psychosocial Support on Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supportive-expressive group therapy has been reported to prolong survival among women with metastatic breast cancer. However, in recent studies, various psychosocial interventions have not prolonged survival. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 235 women with metastatic breast cancer who were expected to survive at least three months in a 2:1 ratio to an intervention group that participated in weekly supportive-expressive group therapy (158 women) or to a control group that received no such intervention (77 women). All the women received educational materials and any medical or psychosocial care that was deemed necessary. The primary outcome was survival; psychosocial function was assessed by self-reported questionnaires. RESULTS: Women assigned to supportive-expressive therapy had greater improvement in psychological symptoms and reported less pain (P=0.04) than women in the control group. A significant interaction of treatment-group assignment with base-line psychological score was found (P</=0.003 for the comparison of mood variables; P=0.04 for the comparison of pain); women who were more distressed benefited, whereas those who were less distressed did not. The psychological intervention did not prolong survival (median survival, 17.9 months in the intervention group and 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for death according to the univariate analysis, 1.06 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.45]; hazard ratio according to the multivariate analysis, 1.23 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.72]). CONCLUSIONS: Supportive-expressive group therapy does not prolong survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. It improves mood and the perception of pain, particularly in women who are initially more distressed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".