Psychosocial outcomes of human papillomavirus (HPV)‐ and non‐HPV‐related head and neck cancers: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Human papillomavirus (HPV) has prompted a need to further investigate how this new biomarker changes the head and neck cancer (HNC) psychosocial landscape. This study aimed to: (a) characterize the sociodemographic, psychological, and social profiles of patients with HPV-positive versus -negative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck; and (b) identify how HPV status contributes to anxiety and depression (primary outcome), quality of life (QoL), and sexuality needs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study of 146 patients newly diagnosed with oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, and hypopharyngeal cancer. Seventy-nine patients were HPV-positive and 67 HPV-negative. Patients completed self-administered psychometric measures upon HNC and 3-month follow-up, and Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM Diagnoses. RESULTS: Patients with HPV-negative tumors generally presented with higher anxiety and depression and lower QoL immediately post-HNC diagnosis (<2 weeks) compared to HPV-positive cancers. A Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) immediately post-HNC diagnosis negatively affected patients' anxiety and depression and QoL levels upon diagnosis only when the cancer was HPV-positive. Immediately posttreatment, HPV status was not associated with outcomes. A previous history of suicidal ideation, and upon cancer diagnosis cigarette smoking, anxiety and depression, and feeling close to one's partner were instead explanatory. CONCLUSION: While patients with HPV-positive HNC generally present with initially lower psychological distress, their vulnerability immediately posttreatment indicates an equal need for support. Head and neck clinics may need to better address MDD, anxiety and depression, a prior history of suicidal ideation, health behavior change, and quality of relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".