Comparison of symptom clusters between Black and White patients with cancer within an electronic patient-reported outcome remote symptom monitoring program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
328 Background: Disparities in pain management for Black patients with cancer are well-documented, but less is known about other symptom clusters like gastrointestinal (GI), respiratory, and urinary symptoms. This study assessed racial disparities in electronically reported symptom clusters among Black and White patients with cancer enrolled in a Remote Symptom Monitoring (RSM) program. Methods: Patients with cancer at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and the Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) reported symptoms weekly using the Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAEs). The GI symptom cluster included decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea; the respiratory cluster included cough and shortness of breath; the urinary cluster included frequent urinary problems. We assessed the presence of any moderate/severe symptoms or any severe symptoms (triggering a nurse alert) in the clusters. The study evaluated surveys submitted within the first six months after RSM enrollment. Generalized linear mixed effects modeling with random effects adjusting for cancer type, sex, and age were used to calculate the odds of reporting any moderate/severe pain between Black and White patients. Results: Among 1454 patients (31% Black, 69% White), 17,937 surveys were analyzed. The median age for Black patients was 59 (IQR 47-66) and 63 (IQR 54-71) for White patients. Breast cancer was most common in both groups (36% Black, 23% White), followed by gynecological (20% Black, 17% White) and gastrointestinal cancers (19% Black, 18% White). At baseline, both races reported similar proportions of moderate/severe or severe symptom for all clusters (Table). During the first six months in the RSM program, symptom proportions remained similar (Table). These findings were consistent in adjusted analysis for the GI (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.68-1.07), respiratory (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.87-1.61), and urinary clusters (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.61-1.39). Conclusions: Our findings suggest no significant racial disparities in reporting moderate/severe or severe symptoms among Black and White patients with cancer at baseline or within their initial six months in the RSM program across GI, respiratory, and urinary symptom clusters. Survey characteristics. Total Surveys(N=17,937) Baseline Surveys 6 Months Surveys White (n=999) Black(n=455) White(n=11,344) Black(n=5139) Gastrointestinal Symptoms, No. (%) Severe 1376 (8) 121 (12) 59 (13) 783 (7) 413 (8) Moderate/Severe 4701 (26) 300 (30) 130 (29) 2971 (26) 1300 (25) Respiratory Symptoms, No. (%) Severe 438 (2) 28 (3) 29 (6) 241 (2) 140 (3) Moderate/Severe 1612 (9) 90 (9) 62 (14) 996 (8) 464 (9) Urinary Symptoms, No. (%) Severe 333 (2) 31 (3) 13 (3) 184 (2) 105 (2) Moderate/Severe 620 (3) 44 (4) 21 (5) 372 (3) 183 (4)
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".