Frequency and characteristics of drowsiness, somnolence, or daytime sleepiness in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related drowsiness (CRD) is a distressing symptom in advanced cancer patients (ACP). The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with severity of CRD. We also evaluated the screening performance of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-drowsiness (ESAS-D) item against the Epworth Sedation Scale (ESS). METHOD: We prospectively assessed 180 consecutive ACP at a tertiary cancer hospital. Patients were surveyed using ESAS, ESS, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Insomnia Severity Index, and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale. RESULT: Ninety of 150 evaluable patients had clinically significant CRD (ESS); median (interquartile ratio): ESS. 11 (7-14); ESAS-D. 5 (2-6); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. 8 (5-11); Insomnia Severity Index. 13 (5-19); Stop Bang Scoring 3 (2-4), and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-D 6 (3-10). ESAS-D was associated with ESAS (r, p) 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), feeling of well-being [(0.41, <0.0001), ESS (0.24, 0.001), and opioid daily dose (0.19, 0.01). Multivariate-analysis showed ESAS-D was associated with fatigue (odds ratio [OR] = 9.08, p < 0.0001), anxiety (3.0, p = 0.009); feeling of well-being (OR = 2.27, p = 0.04), and insomnia (OR = 2.35; p = 0.036). Insomnia (OR = 2.35; p = 0.036) cutoff score ≥3 (of 10) resulted in a sensitivity of 81% and 32% and specificity of 70% and 44% in the training and validation samples, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Clinically significant CRD is frequent and seen in 50% of ACP. CRD was associated with severity of insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, and worse feeling of well-being. An ESAS-D score of ≥3 is likely to identify most of the ACP with significant 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".