Worry about somatic symptoms as a sign of cancer recurrence: prevalence and associations with fear of recurrence and quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Somatic symptoms (e.g., pain, fatigue) are common after childhood cancer and are associated with greater fear of cancer recurrence and poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Qualitative studies indicate that survivors of childhood cancer (SCCs) worry about somatic symptoms as indicating cancer recurrence, which could in part explain associations between symptoms and poorer psychosocial outcomes. However, the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of symptom worry has not been quantitatively studied. METHODS: SCCs (N = 111; 52% female; Mage at study = 17.67 years, range = 8-25 years; Mage at diagnosis = 6.70 years) across a variety of diagnoses were recruited from a pediatric cancer center in Canada and completed self-report measures of symptom worry, symptom frequency, general anxiety, fear of cancer recurrence, and HRQoL. RESULTS: A majority (62%) of SCCs worried about at least one symptom as a sign of recurrence. Pain was the most worrisome symptom, but SCCs also reported worrying about symptoms that are rarely associated with cancer recurrence such as hunger, dizziness, and feeling cold. Symptom worry was more strongly associated with fear of cancer recurrence than the mere frequency of those symptoms, and this relationship held while controlling for treatment factors and general anxiety. Symptom worry and frequency each explained unique variance in HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Worry about somatic symptoms as a sign of cancer recurrence is common and may be impactful after childhood cancer. Excessive worry about somatic symptoms could be an important target to reduce fear of recurrence and increase HRQoL in SCCs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".