MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919793105 · doi:10.1002/pon.5040

Sleep, emotional distress, and physical health in survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

2019· article· en· W2919793105 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren C. Daniel, Mingjuan Wang, Daniel A. Mulrooney, Deo Kumar Srivastava, Lisa A. Schwartz, Kim Edelstein, Tara M. Brinkman, Eric S. Zhou, Rebecca M. Howell, Todd M. Gibson, Wendy M. Leisenring, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Joseph P. Neglia, Leslie L. Robison, Gregory T. Armstrong, Kevin R. Krull

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalPoisson regressionEmotional distressExcessive daytime sleepinessCancer survivorDistressSleep hygieneSleep disorderSleep (system call)CancerPsychiatryClinical psychologyInsomniaAnxietyPopulationInternal medicineSleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Sleep disorders are associated with psychological and physical health, although reports in long-term survivors of childhood cancer are limited. We characterized the prevalence and risk factors for behaviors consistent with sleep disorders in survivors and examined longitudinal associations with emotional distress and physical health outcomes. METHODS: Survivors (n = 1933; median [IQR] age = 35 [30, 41]) and siblings (n = 380; age = 33 [27, 40]) from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study completed measures of sleep quality, fatigue, and sleepiness. Emotional distress and physical health outcomes were assessed approximately 5 years before and after the sleep survey. Multivariable logistic or modified Poisson regression models examined associations with cancer diagnosis, treatment exposures, and emotional and physical health outcomes. RESULTS: Survivors were more likely to report poor sleep efficiency (30.8% vs 24.7%; prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.53), daytime sleepiness (18.7% vs 14.2%; PR = 1.31 [1.01-1.71]), and sleep supplement use (13.5% vs 8.3%; PR = 1.56 [1.09-2.22]) than siblings. Survivors who developed emotional distress were more likely to report poor sleep efficiency (PR = 1.70 [1.40-2.07]), restricted sleep time (PR = 1.35 [1.12-1.62]), fatigue (PR = 2.11 [1.92-2.32]), daytime sleepiness (PR = 2.19 [1.71-2.82]), snoring (PR = 1.85 [1.08-3.16]), and more sleep medication (PR = 2.86 [2.00-4.09]) and supplement use (PR = 1.89[1.33-2.69]). Survivors reporting symptoms of insomnia (PR = 1.46 [1.02-2.08]), fatigue (PR = 1.31 [1.01-1.72]), and using sleep medications (PR = 2.16 [1.13-4.12]) were more likely to develop migraines/headaches. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors report more sleep difficulties and efforts to manage sleep than siblings. These sleep behaviors are related to worsening or persistently elevated emotional distress and may result in increased risk for migraines. Behavioral interventions targeting sleep may be important for improving health outcomes.

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)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207