MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Frequency and characteristics of cancer-related drowsiness (CRD or excessive daytime sleepiness) in patients with advanced cancer: Results of a prospective survey at a tertiary cancer center.

2014· article· en· W2243051347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sriram Yennu, Sandra L. Pedraza, Elyssa A Berg, Gary B. Chisholm, Akhila Reddy, Janet L. Williams, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpworth Sleepiness ScalePittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleInternal medicineAnxietyCancerDepression (economics)Prospective cohort studyCenter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression ScalePhysical therapyPolysomnographyInsomniaApneaPsychiatrySleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

131 Background: CRD is extremely distressing but treatable symptom to the advanced cancer patients (ACP). There are limited studies to evaluate the frequency and characteristics of CRD. The aim of this study was to identify the frequency, and factors associated with severity of CRD. Secondary aim was to determine the screening performance Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS)-drowsiness item against the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Methods: We prospectively assessed 180 consecutive ACP at a tertiary cancer hospital. After obtaining signed consent, the patients completed ESAS, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI); ESS (≥10 diagnostic of CRD), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), STOP-Bang Screening Scale (SBS), and Screening tool for RLS. We determined epidemiological performance, spearman correlations, regression analysis, receiver operated characteristics of CRD. Results: Of the180 patients assessed, 51% were female, CRD was found in 50% ACP, median scores(IQR) ESS: 11(7-14); ESAS- drowsiness item was 5 (2-6); PSQI was 8(5-11); ISI (13 (5-19); SBS 3(2-4); HADS-D 6(3-10). Sleep apnea was found in 61%; and RLS in 38%. ESAS-D was associated with other ESAS items[r, p-value] Sleep (0.38, < 0.0001); pain (0.3, < 0.0001); fatigue(0.51, < 0.0001); depression(0.39, < 0.0001); anxiety(0.44, < 0.0001); shortness of breath(0.32, < 0.0001); anorexia(0.36, < 0.0001), FWB(0.41, < 0.0001), and ESS (0.24, 0.001), Opioid dose [MEDD] (0.19, 0.01). Multivariate analysis found no independent predictors except ISI (OR 2.35; 0.036), ESAS Fatigue (OR 9.08, <0.0001), ESAS Anxiety (3.0, 0.009); feeling of well-being (OR 2.27, p=0.04). An ESAS- drowsiness cut-off score of ≥ 3(of 10) resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 32% and of 70% and 44% in the training and validation samples, respectively. Conclusions: Clinically significant CRD was associated with increased fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance and worse feeling of well-being. These symptoms should be routinely assessed and treated in ACP with CRD. ESAS-drowsiness score of ≥3 of 10 is most useful for screening CRD.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→