MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223502813 · doi:10.1002/pon.5935

Smartphone‐based Ecological Momentary Assessment to study “scanxiety” among Adolescent and Young Adult survivors of childhood cancer: A feasibility study

2022· article· en· W4223502813 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren C. Heathcote, Sarah J. Cunningham, Sarah N. Webster, Vivek Tanna, Elia Mattke, Nele Loecher, Sheri L. Spunt, P. Simon, Gary V. Dahl, Marta Walentynowicz, Elizabeth L. Murnane, Perri R. Tutelman, Lidia Schapira, Laura E. Simons, Claudia Mueller

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
FundersStanford Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsDistressAnxietyPsychologyEcological validityAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Young adultClinical psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Scan-related anxiety ("scanxiety") refers to the fear, stress, and anxiety in anticipation of tests and scans in follow-up cancer care. This study assessed the feasibility of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) for real-world, real-time capture of scanxiety using patients' personal smartphone. METHODS: Adolescent and Young Adult survivors of childhood cancer were prompted to complete EMA surveys on a smartphone app three times per day for 11 days (33 surveys total) around their routine surveillance scans. Participants provided structured feedback on the EMA protocol. RESULTS: Thirty out of 46 contacted survivors (65%) enrolled, exceeding the preregistered feasibility cutoff of 55%. The survey completion rate (83%) greatly exceeded the preregistered feasibility cutoff of 65%. Participants generally found the smartphone app easy and enjoyable to use and reported low levels of distress from answering surveys. Participants reported significantly more daily fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and negative affect in the days before compared to the days after surveillance scans, aligning with the expected trajectory of scanxiety. Participants who reported greater FCR and scanxiety using comprehensive measures at baseline also reported significantly more daily FCR around their surveillance scans, indicating validity of EMA items. Bodily threat monitoring was prospectively and concurrently associated with daily FCR, thus warranting further investigation as a risk factor for scanxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of EMA as a research tool to capture the dynamics and potential risk factors for scanxiety.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207