A 2‐year prospective analysis of insomnia as a mediator of the relationship between androgen deprivation therapy and perceived cognitive function in men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may affect cognitive function in men with prostate cancer (PCa). This study examined whether insomnia symptoms mediate the relationship between ADT and perceived cognitive function and whether depressive symptoms, fatigue severity, and physical activity moderate the strength of this relationship. METHODS: This was a prospective study of ADT recipients (n = 83) who were matched with control patients with PCa who were not on ADT (n = 92) and with controls with no history of cancer (n = 112) over a 2-year follow-up period. Perceived cognitive function and satisfaction were assessed with the Everyday Cognition Scale. Insomnia was assessed with the Insomnia Severity Index. Multilevel mediation analyses were conducted to estimate the indirect effect of ADT on perceived cognitive function through insomnia symptoms. Exploratory moderated mediation analyses assessed whether the indirect effect of ADT on perceived cognitive function through insomnia symptoms was dependent on levels of fatigue, depression, or physical activity. RESULTS: Insomnia symptoms significantly mediated the relationship between receipt of ADT and perceived cognitive function (P < .001) and satisfaction with cognition (P < .001) after controlling for comorbidities. Men with greater fatigue had a more pronounced association of ADT with insomnia severity. Men with greater depressive symptoms had a stronger association between insomnia severity and worse perceived cognitive function. Physical activity was not a significant moderator of the relationship between ADT and perceived cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Insomnia influenced the relationship between ADT and perceived cognitive abilities. Interventions to address insomnia, fatigue, and depression may improve perceived cognitive function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".