Longitudinal Symptom Burden Trajectories in a Population-Based Cohort of Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Group-Based Trajectory Modeling Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the symptom burden trajectory for metastatic breast cancer patients can enable the provision of appropriate supportive care for symptom management. The aim of this study was to describe the longitudinal trajectories of symptom burden for metastatic breast cancer patients at the population-level. A cohort of 995 metastatic breast cancer patients with 16,146 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) assessments was constructed using linked population-level health administrative databases. The patient-reported ESAS total symptom distress score (TSDS) was studied over time using group-based trajectory modeling, and covariate influences on trajectory patterns were examined. Cohort patients experienced symptom burden that could be divided into six distinct trajectories. Patients experiencing a higher baseline TSDS were likely to be classified into trajectory groups with high, uncontrolled TSDS within the study follow-up period (χ2 (1, N = 995) = 136.25, p < 0.001). Compared to patients classified in the group trajectory with the highest relative TSDS (Group 6), patients classified in the lowest relative TSDS trajectory group (Group 1) were more likely to not have comorbidities (97.34% (for Groups 1–3) vs. 91.82% (for Group 6); p < 0.05), more likely to receive chemotherapy (86.52% vs. 80.50%; p < 0.05), and less likely to receive palliative care (52.81% vs. 79.25%; p < 0.0001). Receiving radiotherapy was a significant predictor of how symptom burden was experienced in all identified groups. Overall, metastatic breast cancer patients follow heterogeneous symptom burden trajectories over time, with some experiencing a higher, uncontrolled symptom burden. Understanding trajectories can assist in establishing risk-stratified care pathways for patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".