MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Subjective sleep problems and objective circadian disruption: Impact on outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC).

2015· article· en· W2920901744 on OpenAlexaff
Oxana Palesh, Ayhan Ulusakarya, Georg A. Bjarnason, Françis Lévi, Pasquale F. Innominato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircadian rhythmMedicineActigraphyProportional hazards modelLogistic regressionInternal medicineHazard ratioSleep (system call)OncologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14584 Background: Both subjective sleep problems (S) and circadian disruption (C) have been shown to be independently associated with shorter overall survival (OS), shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and lower objective response (OR) rate in MCC patients (Lévi F., Chronobiol Int, 2014; Innominato P., Sleep Med, 2015). Although sleep and circadian functions are interconnected, the disruption of both (S + C) on patients’ outcomes has yet to be evaluated. Methods: Sleep problems were assessed using self-report sleep item from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Circadian function was evaluated with wrist actigraphy, using the robust I < O parameter. Previously validated cut off values were used. A multivariate Cox regression hazard model was built to predict OS or PFS, whereas a multivariate binary logistic regression was used for predicting OR. Results: Data were available for 237 MCC patients (median age: 60.2 years; Female: 37.6%; Performance Status = 0: 60%) before starting chemotherapy. Sleep problems and circadian disruption were positively correlated (p = 0.006). Patients with no disruption had significantly better outcomes as compared to the other groups. Specifically, patients with C alone or C+S displayed the worst outcomes, followed by those with S alone. Sleep and/or circadian disruption were associated with shorter OS and PFS and lower OR rate, independent of other prognostic factors. Conclusions: Large proportion of MCC patients experience both sleep and circadian disruption. Circadian disruption is sufficient, regardless of sleep, to worsen prognosis, whereas sleep problems are associated with poor outcomes only in patients without circadian disruption. These preliminary results suggest that personalized pharmacological and/or behavioral interventions specifically impacting sleep and/or circadian functions could improve patients’ outcomes. Median OS (months) HR Median PFS (months) HR OR rate OR None (N=47; 19.8%) 28.3 1 13.3 1 55.3 1 Sleep problems alone (N=60; 25.3%) 16.4 1.47 8.8 1.25 43.3 0.64 Circadian disruption alone (N=35; 14.8%) 11.8 2.42 8.6 1.70 28.6 0.34 Both (N=95; 40.1%) 12.0 2.65 5.7 1.96 29.5 0.32 Multivariate p 0.0001 0.001 0.012

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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