MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122961754 · doi:10.1159/000512444

An Examination of the Role of Socioeconomic Status in the Relationship between Depression and Prostate Cancer Survivorship in a Population-Based Sample of Men from Atlantic Canada

2021· article· en· W3122961754 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Ilie, Robert Rutledge, Ellen Sweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineCancerMarital statusDemographySurvivorship curvePopulationDepression (economics)Socioeconomic statusCancer registryOdds ratioComorbidityInternal medicineGerontologyOncologyGynecologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Prostate and skin cancer are among the most prevalent forms of cancer among men and have favorable survival rates compared to other, more aggressive forms of cancers. Recent studies have shown that the odds of depression among men with a lifetime history of prostate cancer are higher compared to men without a lifetime history of prostate cancer. Here we extend previous findings and examine the role of socioeconomic status in the relationship between depression and cancer survivorship status in a population-based sample of men from Atlantic Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on a subsample of 6,585 male participants aged 49-69 years from the 2009-2015 survey cycle of the Atlantic PATH study. The primary outcome was screening positive for mild, moderate or severe depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The main predictor variable was cancer survivorship status (the presence of a lifetime history of prostate cancer, skin cancer, forms of cancer other than prostate or skin cancer, or absence of a lifetime cancer diagnosis). Covariates included age, education, marital status, household income, province, ethnicity, comorbidity, and survivorship time. RESULTS: An estimated 14.7% of men in this sample screened positive for mild, moderate or severe depression. Men with a history of prostate cancer were 2.60 (95% CI: 1.02, 6.65) times more likely to screen positive for depression than men with a history of any other form of cancer. The odds ratios were 10.23 (95% CI: 2.82, 37.49) or 4.00 (95% CI: 1.20, 13.34) times higher for survivors of prostate or skin cancer who reported a low household income to screen positive for depression compared to men with a history of any other form of cancer and high household income. CONCLUSIONS: These results extend current evidence of the association between prostate cancer survivorship and depression compared with men who never had a history of cancer diagnosis by indicating that this association still stands when the survivors of prostate cancer are compared to survivors of any other form of cancer, and further indicates that this association is moderated by household income. The findings highlight the importance of delivering mental health screening and support to prostate cancer survivors during the cancer journey, especially those with low household incomes.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207