MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156551798 · doi:10.1017/s1478951513000850

Self-reported sleep disturbance in patients with advanced cancer: Frequency, intensity, and factors associated with response to outpatient supportive care consultation — A preliminary report

2013· article· en· W2156551798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sriram Yennurajalingam, Gary B. Chisholm, Shana L. Palla, Holly M. Holmes, James M. Reuben, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineSleep disorderPhysical therapySedativeLogistic regressionCancerMedical recordInternal medicineCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207