MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892196452 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.7038

Ability to Predict New-Onset Psychological Distress Using Routinely Collected Health Data: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Women Diagnosed With Breast Cancer

2018· article· en· W2892196452 on OpenAlexaff
Ania Syrowatka, James A. Hanley, Daniala L. Weir, William G Dixon, Ari N. Meguerditchian, Robyn Tamblyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerSurvivorship curvePopulationAnxietyCohortIncidence (geometry)DistressCancerInternal medicinePsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to identify the predictors of new-onset psychological distress available in routinely collected administrative health databases for women diagnosed with breast cancer. The secondary objective was to explore whether the predictors vary based on the period of cancer care. Methods: A population-based cohort study followed 16,495 female patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who did not experience psychological distress during the 14 months before breast cancer surgery. The incidence of psychological distress was reported overall and by type of mental health problem. Time-varying Cox proportional hazards models were developed to identify predictors of new-onset psychological distress during 2 key periods of cancer care: (1) hospital-based treatment during which women undergo treatment with breast surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation, and (2) 1-year transitional survivorship when women begin follow-up care. Results: The incidence of psychological distress was 16% within each period. Anxiety was present in 85.1% and 65.5% of new cases during hospital-based treatment and transitional survivorship, respectively. Predictors during both periods were younger age, receipt of axillary lymph node dissection, rheumatologic disease, and baseline menopausal symptoms, as well as new opioid dispensations, emergency department visits, and hospital contacts that occurred during follow-up. Other predictors varied based on the period of cancer care. More advanced breast cancer and type of treatment were associated with onset of psychological distress during hospital-based treatment. Psychological distress during transitional survivorship was predicted by diagnosis of localized breast disease, shorter duration of hospital-based treatment, receipt of additional hospital-based treatment in survivorship, and newly diagnosed comorbidities or symptoms. Conclusions: This study identified the predictors of new-onset psychological distress available in routinely collected administrative health databases, and showed how predictors change between hospital-based treatment and transitional survivorship periods. The results highlight the importance of developing predictive models tailored to the period of cancer care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207