MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940073558 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz067.824

0826 A Comparison of Pre-Treatment Sleep and Symptom Profiles in Age-Matched Breast and Prostate Cancer Patients

2019· article· en· W2940073558 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Winters, Sheila N. Garland, Nicole Rodriguez, Samantha R. M. Scurrey, John Thoms, Kara Laing

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexMedicineBreast cancerAnxietyProstate cancerInsomniaHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression (economics)Sleep onset latencySleep disorderSleep onsetInternal medicinePhysical therapyCancerSleep qualityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast and prostate cancer patients report sleep disturbance and other problematic symptoms even before beginning cancer treatment. The current analysis examined whether pre-treatment prostate and breast cancer patients differ on sleep quality, insomnia symptom severity, fatigue, and anxiety and depression symptoms. Patients newly diagnosed with non-metastatic breast and prostate cancer were recruited from the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre in St. John’s, Newfoundland. Participants completed the Consensus Sleep Diary for one week, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory - Short From (MFSI-SF) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A MANOVA was conducted to examine sex differences on the sleep diary variables, PSQI, ISI, MFSI-SF, and HADS. Participants were 28 males and 28 females (N = 56) with a mean age of 68. Using the recommended cut-off of 5 on the PSQI, 82% of females and 64% of males had poor sleep quality. Twice as many females (21% vs. 11%) could be classified as having moderate to severe insomnia on the ISI (a score of 15+). Females were more likely than males to experience clinically significant anxiety (17% vs. 7%) and depression symptoms (11% vs. 4%). Females reported longer sleep latency (35.68 minutes vs. 16.68 minutes; F(1, 42) = 9.860, p = .003), less total sleep time (6.61 hours vs. 7.76 hours; F(1, 42) = 7.893, p = .008), and worse sleep efficiency (78% vs. 86%; F(1, 42) = 5.683, p = .022), compared to males. Males and females did not differ significantly on global scores of the PSQI, ISI, or MFSI-SF. Results of the current study suggest that breast cancer patients are entering treatment with poorer sleep and mood compared to prostate cancer patients. These pre-treatment differences may make women more vulnerable to poorer functioning during and after completing cancer treatment. Dr. Garland is supported by a New Investigator Award and seed funding from the Beatrice Hunter Cancer Research Institute (BHCRI).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207