Distress Screening in Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: Development of Cut-Points for the Cancer Distress Scales-Adolescent and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Distress is an important issue facing adolescent and young adults (AYA) with cancer due to their stage of development. Metrics are necessary to help improve psychosocial outcomes in this population. This study determined cut-points for the newly developed Cancer Distress Scales (CDS)-AYA. Methods: The CDS-AYA is a new patient-reported outcomes measure that comprises five independently functioning scales, including the following: Impact of Cancer (12 items), Physical (12 items), Emotional (11 items), Cognitive (8 items), and Cancer Worry (5 items). Canadian AYA with cancer 15–39 years of age completed the CDS-AYA and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), as part of the CDS-AYA field test. Only patients who had completed responses to the CDS-AYA and HADS were included in these analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to generate cut-points for five CDS-AYA scales based on distress defined by the HADS anxiety and HADS depression scale. Results: In total 453 of 515 respondents had complete data for the CDS-AYA and HADS were included in analyses. Area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analyses ranged from 0.75 to 0.85. The CDS-AYA Emotional scale had the greatest AUC. The cutoff value for the Emotional scale was 27 based on the HADS anxiety scores (78.3% and 78.9%). Conclusions: The five CDS-AYA scales had fair to good accuracy when classifying the none/low and moderate/severe distress categories based on HADS anxiety and depression scales. For screening purposes, it is recommended that the Emotional scale or Impact of Cancer scale be utilized.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".