Sleep characteristics and recurrence in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer survivors: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Six months after treatment completion for high-grade ovarian cancer types, the majority of women report poor sleep quality. • Poor sleep duration and efficiency contribute to the poor overall sleep quality; however, most do not experience insomnia. • The distributions of sleep quality, duration, efficiency and insomnia are similar at 6 and 10 months post-treatment. • Directions of associations that suggest sleep characteristics may influence recurrence require examination in larger studies. To describe characteristics of sleep (quality, duration, efficiency, and insomnia) in a cohort of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) survivors who have completed and responded to first-line chemotherapy, and to explore their relationships with disease recurrence. In this cohort of 97 women, sleep and other factors were assessed at baseline and 4 months later. The distribution of participants by categories of sleep characteristics were calculated. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) for the association between each sleep characteristic and recurrence were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, and adjusted for confounding using propensity scores. Associations were estimated for all women and among those defined as fully platinum-sensitive. At baseline, just over half of participants (52.6 % to 56.7 %) had poor sleep quality, efficiency and duration, while most (62.9 %) did not experience insomnia. Distributions remained similar 4 months later. During follow-up, 47 recurrences occurred. Among all participants, HRs (95 % CIs) of recurrence were close to the value of 1, indicating no association, for sleep quality and efficiency, 1.22 (0.66–2.23) for not meeting vs. meeting sleep duration guidelines and 0.68 (0.34–1.39) for the presence vs. absence of insomnia. In fully platinum-sensitive women, the HRs (95 % CIs) were 1.50 (0.64–3.53) for not meeting duration guidelines, 1.25 (0.56–2.79) for poor sleep efficiency, 1.44 (0.55–3.72) for the presence of insomnia, and remained null for sleep quality. Most EOC survivors have poor sleep quality, duration, and efficiency. Research with larger sample sizes is required to better understand the relationship between these sleep characteristics and the risk of recurrence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".