MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112705696 · doi:10.5114/pm.2020.101709

The relationship between depression, anxiety, and pain catastrophising in cancer patients

2020· article· en· W3112705696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fatih İnci, Habibe İnci, Oğuzhan Kılınçel, Süleyman Ersoy, Fatih Karataş, Didem Adahan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedycyna Paliatywna · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDepression (economics)MedicineCancerInternal medicinePalliative careCancer painPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Catastrophising is a person's view of an unreasonable belief and a worse situation than exaggerating its consequences.It is defined as individuals believing that their current condition and physical discomfort will worsen each time or that something will be worse than it actually is.The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between depression and anxiety and pain catastrophising in cancer patients.Material and methods: Fifty-five cancer patients who were followed and treated in the Oncology Outpatient Clinic were included in the study.The age, gender, marital status, occupation, and psychiatric history of the participants were recorded.A socio-demographic data form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS) were applied to the participants. Results:The mean age of the participants was 59.2 ±12.7 years, and 40% were female.When the total BDI and BAI scale scores of cancer patients were evaluated, it was seen that they were not depressed in terms of mean value (p = 0.112), but they were in the anxiety scale (p < 0.05).There was a positive correlation between depression and anxiety, as well as depression and anxiety and pain catastrophising (p < 0.001, r = 0.782).While the PCS subscales "helplessness" and "rumination" scores were significantly higher in cancer patients with depression and anxiety (p < 0.001), the "magnification" score was significantly higher in cancer patients with anxiety (p < 0.001).The Pain Catastrophising Scale total score increased with increasing BDI and BAI severity (p < 0.001), while the BDI and BAI scores were found to be significantly higher in females than males (p < 0.001).Conclusions: It was found that cancer patients were generally not depressed but were anxious, and the catastrophising of pain increased with increasing depression and anxiety severity.Health professionals giving care to cancer patients need to be alert to signs of psychological distress in patients experiencing pain.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedycyna PaliatywnaSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207