Sleep Disturbance Affects Immune Factors in Clinical Liver Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sleep–wake disturbance is prevalent in patients with liver cancer, but there is no direct evidence of its association and related biological mechanisms. Our study was to assess quality of sleep and to describe prevalence of sleep disturbances in patients with different etiologies of liver cancer, especially to explore whether sleep quality influences immune factors. Methods: A total of 210 patients with liver cancer from August 2015 to December 2015 were randomly divided into two groups including HBV cirrhosis and non-HBV cirrhosis. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to evaluate their sleep quality, and then 202 patients enrolled in this study were divided into two groups according to their PSQI scores: PSQI ≤ 5 and PSQI > 5. The association between sleep disturbances and immune factors was analyzed by logistic regression models. Results: A total of 56.9% of liver cancer patients experienced poor sleep quality (PSQI > 5). The prevalence of sleep disturbances was significantly higher in patients with liver cancer of non-hepatitis B virus (HBV) cirrhosis than with that evolving from HBV cirrhosis (66.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.018). In non-HBV cirrhosis liver cancer patients, the PSQI > 5 group had a higher percentage of CD3+ T cells (71.06 ± 11.07 vs. 63.96 ± 14.18, p = 0.014) and lower natural killer (NK) cells (14.67 ± 9.65 vs. 20.5 ± 10.77, p = 0.014) compared with patients with PSQI ≤ 5. Logistic regression further confirmed that liver cancer patients without HBV cirrhosis are more prone to experience poor sleep with increased CD3+ T cells (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01–1.13, p = 0.030) and decreased NK cells (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85–0.98, p = 0.014). Our results indicate that increased CD3+ T cells and decreased NK cells are both associated with sleep disturbances in patients with liver cancer of non-HBV cirrhosis. Conclusions: Most liver cancer patients suffer from sleep disturbances, especially evolving from non-HBV cirrhosis. A rise in CD3+ T cells and a reduction in NK cells are associated with sleep disturbances in patients with liver cancer of non-HBV cirrhosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".