MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378611483 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsad077.0827

0827 Effect of virtual cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia on perceived cognitive functioning among cancer survivors

2023· article· en· W4378611483 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheila N. Garland, Joshua Tulk, Joshua A. Rash, Melanie Seal, Sondria Browne, John Thoms, Kara Laing, Robin Urquhart, Josée Savard

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalDalhousie UniversityDr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaMedicineCognitionQuality of life (healthcare)Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaConventional PCIRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyClinical psychologyCognitive behavioral therapyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Comorbid insomnia and perceived cognitive impairments (PCI) affect up to 26% of individuals diagnosed with cancer. Given the association between sleep and cognition, and the lack of interventions to improve PCI, the present study examined the impact of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on PCI among cancer survivors with insomnia disorder and cognitive complaints (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT04026048). Methods Cancer survivors (N=122) with insomnia and PCI were randomized to 7 weekly virtual CBT-I treatment sessions (n=56) or waitlist control (WLC: n=66). Participants completed the Insomnia Severity Index and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Cognitive Function upon entering the study (baseline; T0), and then again at 4 (T1), and 8 (T2) weeks. A series of 2 (treatment group: CBT-I and WLC) by 3 (time: T0, T1, T2) mixed ANOVAs were performed to assess changes in insomnia symptoms, PCI, perceived cognitive abilities (PCA), and impact of cognitive function on quality of life (QOL). Results Participants were, on average, aged 60 years, had 16 years of education, and 79% were female. Breast cancer was the most reported cancer type (46%). No significant differences were observed between groups at T0 for demographic or clinical variables (p>.05). There was a significant group by time interaction for insomnia [p=<.001, partial eta squared (pes)=.36]. Individuals randomized to CBT-I reported significant decreases in insomnia symptoms post treatment compared to WLC (CBT-I: -11.5; WLC: -2.7). Significant interactions were also observed for PCI (p=<.001, pes=.11), PCA (p=<.001, pes=.16), and impact on QOL (p=<.001, pes=.15). Participants randomized to CBT-I reported significantly less PCI (CBT-I: 14.7; WLC: 4.1), better PCA (CBT-I: 5.8; WLC: 1.1), and less impact on QOL (CBT-I: 4.9; WLC: 1.1) than participants in the WLC. Conclusion In addition to improving insomnia, CBT-I significantly improve perceived cognitive functioning and quality of life among cancer survivors. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying improvements in cognition following CBT-I. Support (if any) Dr. Sheila Garland is supported by a Canadian Cancer Society Emerging Scholar Award (Survivorship) (grant #707146). This project was funded through a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (grant number: PJT 162428) and the Beatrice Hunter Cancer Research Institute.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207