The association of circadian parameters and the clustering of fatigue, depression, and sleep problems in breast cancer survivors: a latent class analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Circadian rhythms control a wide range of physiological processes and may be associated with fatigue, depression, and sleep problems. We aimed to identify subgroups of breast cancer survivors based on symptoms of fatigue, insomnia, and depression; and assess whether circadian parameters (i.e., chronotype, amplitude, and stability) were associated with these subgroups over time. METHODS: Among breast cancer survivors, usual circadian parameters were assessed at 3-4 months after diagnosis (T0), and symptoms of fatigue, depression, and insomnia were assessed after 2-3 years (T1, N = 265) and 6-8 years (T2, N = 169). We applied latent class analysis to classify survivors in unobserved groups ("classes") based on symptoms at T1. The impact of each of the circadian parameters on class allocation was assessed using multinomial logistic regression analysis, and changes in class allocation from T1 to T2 using latent transition models. RESULTS: We identified 3 latent classes of symptom burden: low (38%), moderate (41%), and high (21%). Survivors with a late chronotype ("evening types") or low circadian amplitude ("languid types") were more likely to have moderate or high symptom burden compared to "morning types" and "vigorous types," respectively. The majority of survivors with moderate (59%) or high (64%) symptom burden at T1 had persistent symptom burden at T2. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A late chronotype and lower circadian amplitude after breast cancer diagnosis were associated with greater symptoms of fatigue, depression, and insomnia at follow-up. These circadian parameters may potentially be novel targets in interventions aimed at alleviating symptom burden among breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".