Correlates of disrupted sleep–wake variables in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: High rates of sleep difficulties have been found in patients with advanced cancer. However, not much is known about factors that are associated with sleep impairments in this population and that could constitute their potential risk factors or consequences. This study conducted in patients with cancer receiving palliative care aimed to evaluate the relationships of subjective (sleep diary; Insomnia Severity Index, ISI) and objective (actigraphy) sleep-wake variables with several physical and psychological symptoms, maladaptive sleep behaviours, erroneous beliefs about sleep, quality of life, time to death and environmental factors. METHODS: The sample was composed of 57 community-dwelling patients with cancer receiving palliative care and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Scale score of 2 or 3. Actigraphic, light and sound recording and a daily sleep and pain diary were completed for seven consecutive days. A battery of self-report scales was also administered. RESULTS: Greater disruptions of subjective and objective sleep-wake variables were more consistently associated with worse physical symptoms than with psychological variables. Disrupted objective sleep-wake parameters were also associated with a greater frequency of maladaptive sleep behaviours. Finally, a greater nocturnal noise in the bedroom was correlated with more impairments in subjective and objective sleep-wake variables while a lower 24-hour light exposure was associated with more disruption of subjectively assessed sleep only. CONCLUSIONS: Although longitudinal studies are needed to establish the etiology of sleep-wake difficulties in patients with advanced cancer, our findings suggest that physical symptoms, maladaptive sleep behaviours and environmental factors can contribute to their development or their persistence and need to be adequately addressed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".