Prognostic value of patient‐reported depression in women with hormone‐responsive early breast cancer in TEXT and SOFT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression has been identified as an adverse mental health outcome in women with breast cancer (BC). Depression was investigated as a risk factor for poor survival in premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early BC treated in the TEXT (Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial) and SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial) trials. METHODS: The data used were from a subset of patients who participated in TEXT or SOFT and completed the Center of Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale. Associations between baseline depression-score categories and baseline characteristics were assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for antidepressant use. Multivariable proportional hazards regression models were used to test the association between baseline depression and disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Regression models were adjusted for factors known to be associated with outcomes, baseline antidepressant use, and early treatment cessation. RESULTS: Forty percent (2287 of 5738) of the women enrolled in the SOFT and TEXT trials were included in this analysis (SOFT, n = 1259; TEXT, n = 1028). Twenty-seven percent of women reported mild-to-moderate or severe depression at baseline. Race (p = .001), body mass index (p = .02), family history (p = .02), and performance status (p =.007) were significantly associated with the severity of depression. Relative to the no-symptomatology group, the hazard ratios (overall p = .04) for DFS were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.76) for women with mild-to-moderate depression and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.96-1.87) for those with severe depression. Relative to the no-symptomatology group, the hazard ratios (overall p = .008) for OS were 1.68 for mild-to-moderate depression (95% CI, 1.15-2.44) and 1.67 for those with severe depression (95% CI, 1.05-2.66). CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early BC, depression at baseline is a risk factor for poorer DFS and OFS. Further investigation of the underlying interactive processes is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00066703 (SOFT) and NCT00066690 (TEXT).
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".