Self-reported sleep disturbance in patients with advanced cancer: Frequency, intensity, and factors associated with response to outpatient supportive care consultation — A preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Self-reported sleep disturbance (SD) is a distressing symptom in patients with advanced cancer. There are limited data on the treatment of SD and predictors to response of SD to outpatient supportive care clinic (OPC) consultation. The aims of our study was to determine the frequency, intensity, and correlates of SD as assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) sleep item at the time of initial consultation and identify the predictors of improvement in SD at follow-up. METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with advanced cancer presenting to the OPC. ESAS scores were obtained at the initial and subsequent visits between January 2008 and February 2010. All patients underwent screening for SD (0-10 scale: 0 = best sleep, presence of SD defined as ≥ 3) and interdisciplinary assessment and treatment, including drug review, counseling, sleep hygiene review, and drug therapy. A response was defined as a 1-point improvement at the follow-up visit on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) sleep item score. Baseline patient characteristics, medication use, and ESAS scores were analyzed to determine their association with response. RESULTS: The median age was 58 years, and 53% of patients were men. The most common cancer type was head and neck or lung (36%). Of the 442 patients, 330 had baseline SD (score ≥ 3/10, 75%). Median and mean (standard deviation) baseline SD scores were 5 and 5.1 (2.9). The multivariable regression model found the intensity of baseline ESAS sleep item scores to be associated with baseline sedative use, baseline ESAS pain scores, baseline ESAS fatigue scores, baseline ESAS feeling of well-being scores, and sedative use (R 2 = 0.22). Sleep disturbance response at first follow-up was seen in 196 of 330 patients (59%). Moderate to high SD score and anxiety at initial visit with odds ratios (OR) of 2.53 (p = 0.0007) and 1.59 (p = 0.048), respectively, were associated with a response. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Both the frequency and severity of SD were high. Response to supportive care consultation was substantial. The severity of SD and anxiety at the initial visit predicted a response at first follow-up. Further research is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".