Self-Reported Rates of Sleep Disturbance in Patients with Symptomatic Bone Metastases Attending an Outpatient Radiotherapy Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the reported rates and predictive factors for sleep disturbance in patients with bone metastases. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic bone metastases treated with palliative radiotherapy (RT) were eligible. At initial consultation, demographic information, baseline Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire, and analgesic consumption were recorded. The BPI functional interference sleep item was categorized into none (0), mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10). Follow-up BPI was collected in person or via telephone post-RT at week 4, 8, and 12. Subgroup analysis for BPI between responders and nonresponders was performed. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to search for the relationship between sleep disturbance and other covariates. RESULTS: Four hundred patients were enrolled between May 2003 and June 2007. Two hundred thirty-five males (59%) were accrued. The median age was 68 years old (range, 30-91). Within the study population, primary cancer sites included breast (25%), lung (25%), prostate (24%), bladder (4%), pancreas/gastric (3%), and other primaries (18%). In the BPI functional interference items, the mean baseline score for sleep disturbance was 4.8. When categorized in terms of severity, 99 (25%) patients had moderate sleep disturbance and 144 (36%) patients had severe sleep disturbance, respectively. There was an improvement in sleep scores for both responders and nonresponders at week 4 and 8, but scores worsened for nonresponders at week 12. CONCLUSION: Age, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), pain score, and lung primary were the significant variables associated with sleep disturbance. The scores for sleep disturbance improved significantly post-RT in responders at week 4 and 12.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".